Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5, 23024-23043 [E9-11184]
Download as PDF
23024
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 93
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0540; FRL–8904–1]
RIN 2060–AP29
Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5
and PM10 Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing
amendments to the transportation
conformity rule that primarily affect
conformity’s implementation in PM2.5
and PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. EPA is proposing to
update the transportation conformity
regulation in light of the October 17,
2006 final rule that strengthened the 24hour PM2.5 air quality standard and
revoked the annual PM10 standard. In
addition, EPA is proposing to clarify the
regulations concerning hot-spot
analyses to address a remand from the
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (Environmental
Defense v. EPA, 509 F.3d 553 (DC Cir.
2007)). This portion of the proposal
applies to PM2.5 and PM10
nonattainment and maintenance areas
as well as carbon monoxide
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The Clean Air Act requires federally
supported transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs,
and projects to be consistent with
(‘‘conform to’’) the purpose of the state
air quality implementation plan. DOT is
EPA’s federal partner in implementing
the transportation conformity
regulation. EPA has consulted with
DOT, and they concur with this
proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposal must be received on or before
June 15, 2009, unless a public hearing
is requested by May 26, 2009. If a public
hearing is requested by a commenter, it
will be held June 4, 2009 at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. If a hearing is requested,
written comments must be received by
June 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0540, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744.
• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:45 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0540. Please include a total of two
copies.
• Hand Delivery: Air Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: EPA West Building, EPA
Docket Center (Room 3334), 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0540. Please include two
copies. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0540. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is
requested, it will be held at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, on June 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Berry, State Measures and
Conformity Group, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105, e-mail address:
berry.laura@epa.gov, telephone number:
(734) 214–4858, fax number: (734) 214–
4052; or Patty Klavon, State Measures
and Conformity Group, Transportation
and Regional Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105, e-mail address:
klavon.patty@epa.gov, telephone
number: (734) 214–4476, fax number:
(734) 214–4052.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. General Information
II. Background on the Transportation
Conformity Rule
III. General Overview of Transportation
Conformity for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
IV. Baseline Year for Certain 2006 PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas
V. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006 PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas That Do Not Have
Adequate or Approved SIP Budgets for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
VI. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006 PM2.5
Areas That Have 1997 PM2.5 SIP Budgets
VII. Other Conformity Requirements for 2006
PM2.5 Areas
VIII. Transportation Conformity in PM10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
and the Revocation of the Annual PM10
NAAQS
IX. Response to the December 2007 Hot-Spot
Court Decision
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially regulated by the
conformity rule are those that adopt,
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
approve, or fund transportation plans,
programs, or projects under title 23
U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Regulated
categories and entities affected by
today’s action include:
Category
Examples of regulated
entities
Local
government ....
Local transportation and air
quality agencies, including
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
State transportation and air
quality agencies.
Department of Transportation (Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)).
State
government ....
Federal
government ....
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this proposal. This table lists
the types of entities of which EPA is
aware that potentially could be
regulated by the transportation
conformity rule. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
organization is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the
applicability requirements in 40 CFR
93.102. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the persons
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CDROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
• Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
You may be required to pay a
reasonable fee for copying docket
materials.
C. How Do I Get Copies of This
Proposed Rule and Other Documents?
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0540. You can
get a paper copy of this Federal Register
document, as well as the documents
specifically referenced in this action,
any public comments received, and
other information related to this action
at the official public docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for its location.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through EPA’s
Transportation Conformity Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
You may also access this document
electronically under the Federal
Register listings at https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the official
public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use
www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the
system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the
appropriate docket identification
number.
Certain types of information will not
be placed in the electronic public
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23025
docket. Information claimed as CBI and
other information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute is not available
for public viewing in the electronic
public docket. EPA’s policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed
in the electronic public docket but will
be available only in printed, paper form
in the official public docket.
To the extent feasible, publicly
available docket materials will be made
available in the electronic public
docket. When a document is selected
from the index list in EPA Dockets, the
system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in the
electronic public docket. Although not
all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any
of the publicly available docket
materials through the docket facility
identified in the ADDRESSES section.
EPA intends to provide electronic
access in the future to all of the publicly
available docket materials through the
electronic public docket.
Public comments submitted on
computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be
transferred to the electronic public
docket. Public comments that are
mailed or delivered to the docket will be
scanned and placed in the electronic
public docket. Where practical, physical
objects will be photographed, and the
photograph will be placed in the
electronic public docket along with a
brief description written by the docket
staff.
For additional information about the
electronic public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
II. Background on the Transportation
Conformity Rule
A. What Is Transportation Conformity?
Transportation conformity is required
under Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42
U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that
transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs (TIPs) and
federally supported highway and transit
project activities are consistent with
(‘‘conform to’’) the purpose of the state
air quality implementation plan (SIP).
Conformity to the purpose of the SIP
means that transportation activities will
not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the relevant
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Transportation conformity
applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment, and those areas
redesignated to attainment after 1990
(‘‘maintenance areas’’) for
transportation-related criteria
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23026
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pollutants: Carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
particulate matter (PM2.5, and PM10).1
EPA’s transportation conformity rule
(40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) establishes the
criteria and procedures for determining
whether transportation activities
conform to the SIP. EPA first
promulgated the transportation
conformity rule on November 24, 1993
(58 FR 62188), and subsequently
published several other amendments.
DOT is EPA’s federal partner in
implementing the transportation
conformity regulation. EPA has
consulted with DOT, which concurs
with this proposed rule.
A few recent amendments to the
transportation conformity rule are
useful background for today’s proposal.
In a final rule EPA published on July 1,
2004 (69 FR 40004), EPA provided
conformity procedures for state and
local agencies under the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), among
other things. EPA’s nonattainment area
designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS were effective in
June 2004 and April 2005 respectively.
The July 2004 update provided
guidance and rules for implementing
conformity for these NAAQS. In
addition, on May 6, 2005, EPA
promulgated a final rule entitled,
‘‘Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the New PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard:
PM2.5 Precursors’’ (70 FR 24280). This
final rule specified transportationrelated PM2.5 precursors and when they
must be considered in transportation
conformity determinations in PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
On March 10, 2006, EPA promulgated
a final rule (71 FR 12468) entitled,
‘‘PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in
Project-Level Transportation Conformity
Determinations for the New PM2.5 and
Existing PM10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.’’ This rule
established the criteria and procedures
for determining which transportation
projects must be analyzed for local air
quality impacts—or ‘‘hot-spots’’—in
PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. See Section IX. of
today’s preamble for more information
regarding the March 2006 rule; see
EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/
index.htm for further information about
1 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) defines PM
2.5 and PM10 as
particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 2.5 and 10 micrometers,
respectively.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
any of EPA’s transportation conformity
rulemakings.2
B. Why Are We Issuing This Proposed
Rule?
Today’s proposed rule is necessary
because EPA promulgated a final rule
on October 17, 2006 that changed the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS, as described
further below. These revisions to the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS necessitate an
update to the transportation conformity
rule to provide guidance and rules for
implementing conformity for these
NAAQS. Sections III. through VIII.
describe the proposed changes to the
transportation conformity rule that are a
result of the October 2006 revisions to
the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS.
Today’s proposed rule is also
necessary because of a court decision
regarding the March 2006 hot-spot
rulemaking. Section IX. of this preamble
describes the issue, the court’s decision,
and EPA’s proposed response.
III. General Overview of
Transportation Conformity for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Background on 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Development
EPA issued a final rule on October 17,
2006 that strengthened the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and revoked the annual
PM10 NAAQS (71 FR 61144). In that
final rule, EPA strengthened the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS from the 1997 level of 65
micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)
(average of 98th percentile values for
three consecutive years) to 35 μg/m3,
while the level of the annual PM2.5
NAAQS remained unchanged at 15.0
μg/m3 (average of three consecutive
annual average values). This final rule
was effective on December 18, 2006.
EPA selected levels for the final NAAQS
after completing an extensive review of
thousands of scientific studies on the
impact of fine and coarse particles on
public health and welfare. For
additional information about the
October 17, 2006 rulemaking, the final
rule and EPA outreach materials can be
found at: https://www.epa.gov/air/
particlepollution/actions.html.
The October 2006 rule establishing
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS did not revoke
the 1997 annual or 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See Section D. below for
details on how this proposal would
interact with conformity requirements
for those areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
2 At this Web site, click on ‘‘Regulations’’ to find
all of EPA’s proposed and final rules as well the
current transportation conformity regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPA signed the final rule designating
areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on
December 22, 2008. Conformity for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will apply one year
after the effective date of the
nonattainment designations.3 The
designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
are separate from and do not impact
existing designations for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
B. When Does Conformity Apply for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS?
Transportation conformity for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2006
PM2.5 NAAQS’’) does not apply until
one year after the effective date of
nonattainment designations for this
NAAQS. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(6)
and 40 CFR 93.102(d) provide a oneyear grace period from the effective date
of designations before transportation
conformity applies in areas newly
designated nonattainment for a
particular NAAQS.4
The following discussion provides
more details on the application of the
one-year grace period in specific types
of newly designated nonattainment
areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
metropolitan, donut and isolated rural
areas. This information is consistent
with how conformity for new NAAQS
has been implemented in the past.
1. Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan areas are urbanized
areas that have a population greater than
50,000 and a designated metropolitan
planning organization (MPO)
responsible for transportation planning
per 23 U.S.C. 134. The one-year grace
period means that, in general, within
one year after the effective date of the
initial nonattainment designation for a
given pollutant and NAAQS, the area’s
MPO and DOT must make a conformity
determination with regard to that
pollutant and NAAQS for the area’s
transportation plan and TIP. The
procedures for interagency consultation
process found in 40 CFR 93.105 or a
state’s approved conformity SIP must be
used in making conformity
determinations for transportation plans
and TIPs. MPOs must continue to meet
conformity requirements for any other
3 The effective date for these nonattainment
designations will be included in the Federal
Register publication of the final designations rule.
4 EPA began the process of notifying state and
local agencies, via the EPA regional offices, of the
timing of conformity under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in its April 16, 2007 memorandum entitled,
‘‘Transportation Conformity and the Revised 24hour PM2.5 Standard,’’ from Merrylin Zaw-Mon,
Director, Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I–
X.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
applicable NAAQS, including the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, if the area is designated
nonattainment or maintenance for such
NAAQS as well.
The one-year grace period for
conformity also applies to project-level
conformity determinations (including
hot-spot analyses in certain cases) in
newly designated 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas. At the end of the
one-year grace period for conformity,
requirements for project-level
conformity determinations must be met
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS before any
new federal approvals for such projects
can occur. For non-exempt Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
projects, a conformity determination is
normally required before the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process is completed, since NEPA is
typically the first stage requiring
approval in a federal project’s
development. However, if the NEPA
process was completed before
conformity applies, then areas that are
newly designated as nonattainment may
also be required to demonstrate
conformity for subsequent funding and
approvals for project phases (e.g., rightof-way acquisition, final design,
construction). Conformity would be
needed for a subsequent project phase if
it occurs after the grace period has
ended, and the project has not yet been
included in a conformity determination
for the relevant pollutant and NAAQS
or met other applicable conformity
requirements.
Before the end of the one-year grace
period, FHWA or FTA could voluntarily
choose to make a project-level
conformity determination that meets the
conformity rule’s requirements. The
procedures for interagency consultation
found in 40 CFR 93.105 or a state’s
approved conformity SIP must be used
in making project-level conformity
determinations for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. As described further below in
D. of this section, areas that are
designated nonattainment for both the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS will need to address all of these
NAAQS in conformity determinations.
If, at the conclusion of the one-year
grace period, the MPO and DOT have
not made a transportation plan and TIP
conformity determination for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the area would be in a
conformity ‘‘lapse.’’ During a conformity
lapse, only certain projects can receive
additional federal funding or approvals
to proceed (e.g., exempt projects, project
phases that were approved before the
lapse). The practical impact of a
conformity lapse will vary on an areaby-area basis. For additional
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
information on projects that can proceed
during a conformity lapse, read the
following guidance memoranda that
address the March 2, 1999 U.S. Court of
Appeals decision that affected related
provisions of the conformity rule
(Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA,
167 F.3d 641 (DC Cir. 1999): DOT’s
January 2, 2002 guidance, published in
the Federal Register on February 7,
2002 (67 FR 5882); DOT’s May 20, 2003
and FTA’s April 9, 2003 supplemental
guidance documents; and, EPA’s May
14, 1999 guidance memorandum. EPA’s
current conformity rule reflects all of
these guidance documents (69 FR
40005–40006).
2. Donut Areas
For the purposes of transportation
conformity, a ‘‘donut’’ area is the
geographic area outside a metropolitan
planning area boundary, but inside a
designated nonattainment or
maintenance area boundary that
includes an MPO (40 CFR 93.101). The
conformity requirements for donut
areas, including the application of the
one-year conformity grace period, are
generally the same as those for
metropolitan areas. Within one year of
the effective date of an area’s initial
nonattainment designation for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the existing and planned
transportation network for the donut
portion of the area (as well as for the
metropolitan portion of the area) must
demonstrate conformity, or conformity
of the metropolitan transportation plan
and TIP will lapse as described above,
and the entire nonattainment area will
be unable to obtain additional project
funding and approvals for the duration
of the lapse.
The interagency consultation group
for each newly designated
nonattainment area that includes a
donut portion should determine how
best to consider the donut area
transportation system and new donut
area projects in the MPO’s regional
emissions analyses and transportation
plan and TIP conformity
determinations. For more discussion on
how conformity determinations should
be made for donut areas, see the
preamble to the July 1, 2004 conformity
rule (69 FR 40013).
In nonattainment and maintenance
areas with a donut portion, adjacent
MPOs must meet conformity
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and
other applicable NAAQS, including
requirements for any 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS for which the donut area is
designated nonattainment.
The one-year grace period for
conformity also applies to project-level
conformity determinations in newly
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23027
designated nonattainment areas that
include a donut portion, as described
above for projects in metropolitan areas.
3. Isolated Rural Areas
Isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas are areas that do not
contain or are not part of any
metropolitan planning area as
designated by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49
U.S.C. 5303 (40 CFR 93.101). Isolated
rural areas do not have metropolitan
transportation plans or TIPs required
under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303
and 5304 for any portion of the area,
and do not have projects that are part of
the emissions analysis of any MPO’s
transportation plan or TIP. Instead,
projects in such areas are included only
in statewide transportation
improvement programs and statewide
transportation plans, when appropriate.
As in other newly designated
nonattainment areas, the one-year
conformity grace period for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will begin on the
effective date of an isolated rural area’s
initial nonattainment designation.
However, because these areas do not
have federally required metropolitan
transportation plans and TIPs, they are
not subject to the frequency
requirements for conformity
determinations on transportation plans
and TIPs (40 CFR 93.104(b), (c), and (e)).
Instead, conformity determinations in
isolated rural areas are required only
when a non-exempt FHWA/FTA
project(s) needs funding or approval.
In fact, many isolated rural areas may
not have a transportation project in need
of federal funding or approval for some
time after the one-year grace period has
ended, and therefore, would not have to
demonstrate conformity before that
time. Once the conformity grace period
has expired, a conformity determination
would only be required in such areas
when a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project
needs funding or approval. For more
information on the conformity
requirements for isolated rural areas, see
40 CFR 93.109(l); corresponding
discussions on how to demonstrate
conformity in isolated rural areas can
also be found in the preambles to the
November 24, 1993 transportation
conformity final rule (58 FR 62207) and
the August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR
43785).
Please note that the current
regulation’s § 93.109(l) would be
renamed as § 93.109(n) under today’s
proposal, due to the other proposed
revisions and additions in this
regulatory section. As we are simply
renumbering this provision, we are not
seeking comment because it is an
administrative change. The basic
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23028
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conformity requirements for isolated
rural areas remain unchanged.
C. Proposed Definitions for PM2.5
NAAQS
EPA is proposing two new definitions
to § 93.101 of the conformity rule to
distinguish between the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
These definitions would help
implement certain conformity
requirements in areas that have been
designated nonattainment for 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and/or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Some areas designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS also are designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. In addition, some areas are
designated for only the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
The proposed addition of these
definitions is also similar to the existing
rule’s definitions in 40 CFR 93.101 for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the proposed
definitions are generally consistent with
how EPA is defining both kinds of PM2.5
areas for air quality planning purposes.
EPA also notes that any provision of the
conformity rule that references only
‘‘PM2.5’’ and does not specify which
NAAQS will continue to apply to any
area designated nonattainment for a
PM2.5 NAAQS.
D. How Would This Proposal Interact
With Existing Conformity Requirements
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS?
Sections IV. through VI. of today’s
proposal describe proposed conformity
requirements for areas designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any
changes to the existing transportation
conformity requirements for areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, since EPA’s
nonattainment designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will not affect existing
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment
designations.
Nonattainment designations for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are
different designations with separate SIP
requirements, different attainment
dates, etc. As a result, Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(5) requires conformity
requirements to be met in both 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas, as applicable.
Some areas designated nonattainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS have never
been subject to PM2.5 conformity
requirements. Under today’s proposal
and Clean Air Act section 176(c)(5),
these areas would be required to meet
only 2006 PM2.5 conformity
requirements, and not conformity
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, because these areas are not
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Other areas designated nonattainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS have been
designated also, in whole or in part, for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These areas
would continue to meet their existing
conformity requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as well as any additional
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA notes that MPOs where both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS apply
would have to determine conformity for
both NAAQS. MPOs subject to both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be
able to:
• Use existing transportation models
and data for regional emissions analyses
for both NAAQS, especially where
nonattainment area boundaries are the
same;
• Rely on analysis years for
conformity determinations that are the
same for both NAAQS (e.g., analysis
years for the last year of the
transportation plan, an intermediate
year, etc.); and
• Meet consultation and other
conformity requirements through the
existing processes.
EPA is also proposing that before
budgets for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are
available, conformity determinations for
some 2006 PM2.5 areas would be based
on the same conformity test (i.e., the
budget test) that is being used for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in
Section VI., EPA is proposing that MPOs
use any adequate or approved SIP
budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for
conformity determinations that are
made prior to SIP budgets for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS being available.
Today’s proposal does not impact
project-level conformity requirements
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For
example, EPA is not proposing any
changes to the PM2.5 hot-spot analysis
requirements, and EPA and FHWA’s
existing guidance for such analyses
continues to be available.5 For the
purposes of PM2.5 conformity, a hot-spot
analysis must address the PM2.5 NAAQS
for which the area has been designated
nonattainment.6 See Section VII. for
further information regarding EPA’s
proposal for project-level conformity
5 ‘‘Transportation Conformity Guidance for
Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,’’ EPA420–
B–06–902, March 2006.
6 EPA notes that today’s proposal does not
address project requirements for the National
Environmental Policy Act or other environmental
programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA will work with PM2.5
nonattainment areas as needed to ensure
that state and local agencies can meet
conformity requirements for both the
applicable 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in a timely and efficient manner. EPA
requests comment on whether
additional information or training will
be necessary for conformity
implementation under the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. If your agency submits
comments, please be as specific as
possible regarding what types of
situations and issues may need to be
addressed in future implementation of
PM2.5 conformity requirements.
IV. Baseline Year for Certain 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
A. Background
Conformity determinations for
transportation plans, TIPs, and projects
not from a conforming transportation
plan and TIP must include a regional
emissions analysis that fulfills Clean Air
Act provisions. The conformity rule
provides for several different regional
emissions analysis tests that satisfy
Clean Air Act requirements in different
situations. Once a SIP with a motor
vehicle emissions budget (‘‘budget’’) is
submitted for an air quality NAAQS and
EPA finds the budget adequate for
conformity purposes or approves it as
part of the SIP, conformity is
demonstrated using the budget test for
that pollutant or precursor, as described
in 40 CFR 93.118.
Before an adequate or approved SIP
budget is available, conformity of the
transportation plan, TIP, or project not
from a conforming transportation plan
and TIP is demonstrated with the
interim emissions test(s), as described in
40 CFR 93.119. The interim emissions
tests include different forms of the
‘‘build/no-build’’ test and ‘‘baseline
year’’ test. In general, for the baseline
year test, emissions from the planned
transportation system or project not
from a conforming transportation plan
and TIP are compared to emissions that
occurred in the baseline year (please
refer to § 93.119 for the more detailed,
specific requirements). This part of
today’s proposal would update § 93.119
of the current conformity rule for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The baseline year
for nonattainment areas under the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2002 (40 CFR
93.119(e)(2)). Sections V. and VI. of this
proposal go into further detail about
how any baseline year option would be
applied in 2006 PM2.5 areas.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
B. Proposal
EPA is proposing that a year more
recent than 2002 be used as the baseline
year for conformity purposes in 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA
requests comment on the following
proposed options:
• Option 1: Define the baseline year
as 2008;
• Option 2: Rather than naming a
specific year, define the baseline year
for conformity purposes as whatever
year would be used to meet other air
quality planning requirements, such as
SIP planning and inventory
requirements;
• Option 3: Define the baseline year
as 2005.
Option 2 would establish the baseline
year for conformity purposes for the
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as well
as any areas designated for a PM2.5
NAAQS that EPA promulgates in the
future. Therefore, if this option were
finalized, the transportation conformity
rule would not have to be amended in
the future to establish a new baseline
year for conformity if additional
NAAQS changes are made in the future.
There are different formulations of
regulatory text that EPA could use to
define the baseline year under Option 2.
For example, EPA could define the
baseline year for any area designated for
a PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated after 1997
as the most recent year for which EPA’s
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements
(AERR) (40 CFR part 51) requires
submission of on-road mobile source
emissions inventories, as of the effective
date of EPA’s nonattainment
designations for such NAAQS. Another
possibility would be to simply define
the conformity baseline year as the year
that will be used as the baseline for SIP
development for given NAAQS, which
EPA could specify in a guidance
memorandum issued in the future.
Option 2 would likely result in the
year 2008 as the baseline year in 2006
PM2.5 areas because this is the year
anticipated to be the baseline year for
SIP planning and inventory
requirements. The year 2008 would also
be the most recent year of on-road
mobile source emissions inventories
available for SIP planning purposes
when SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
are likely to be due.
EPA is proposing rule language for
Options 1 and 2 in § 93.119(e)(2)(B),
although all three of these options could
be considered for the final rule. EPA is
therefore soliciting comment on all
three options. While today’s action
proposes no changes to the 2002
baseline year for areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
NAAQS, we propose to reorganize
§ 93.119(e)(2) to clarify that 2002
applies only to areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
The existing interagency consultation
process (40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i)) would
be used to determine the latest
assumptions and models for generating
baseline year motor vehicle emissions to
complete any baseline year test. The
baseline year emissions level that is
used in conformity would be required to
be based on the latest planning
assumptions available, the latest
emissions model, and appropriate
methods for estimating travel and
speeds as required by 40 CFR 93.110,
93.111, and 93.122 of the current
conformity rule. The baseline year test
can be completed with a submitted or
draft baseline year motor vehicle
emissions SIP inventory, if the SIP
reflects the latest information and
models. If such a SIP baseline is not
available, an MPO, in consultation with
state and local air agencies, could also
develop baseline year emissions as part
of the conformity analysis.
C. Rationale
EPA believes that a more recent year
than 2002 is appropriate for meeting
Clean Air Act conformity requirements
for 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
EPA also believes that using a more
recent year than 2002 is required to
meet these statutory requirements, and
is more environmentally protective and
relevant for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Coordinating the conformity baseline
year with the year used for SIP planning
and an emission inventory year was
EPA’s rationale for using 2002 as the
baseline year for conformity tests in
existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 1997 NAAQS. As described in the
July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40015),
EPA selected 2002 as the conformity
baseline year because 2002 was
identified as the anticipated emission
inventory base year for the SIP planning
process under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.7
EPA continues to believe that
coordinating the conformity’s baseline
with other data collection and inventory
requirements would allow state and
local governments to use their resources
more efficiently. However, for the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the year
2002 does not have the same relevance
and does not provide the same level of
environmental protection as a more
recent year.
7 Also, the AERR requires submission of point,
nonpoint, and mobile source emissions inventories
every three years, and 2002 was one of those
required years for such updates.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23029
In choosing the baseline year for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also believes
it could be important to coordinate the
conformity rule’s baseline year with the
year ultimately used as a baseline for
SIP planning for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
as well as other emissions inventory
requirements. EPA has proposed 2008
as a baseline year for conformity
purposes (Option 1) and believes such
an option would be appropriate to meet
Clean Air Act conformity requirements.
EPA selected 2002 for the baseline year
tests in 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
nonattainment areas in the July 1, 2004
final rule (69 FR 40015) not only
because EPA believed that 2002 was the
most appropriate measure for meeting
Clean Air Act conformity requirements
not to worsen air quality or delay timely
attainment or achievement of any
required interim milestone prior to SIP
budgets being established, but also
because EPA believed it was important
to have transportation and air quality
planning coordinated. Having consistent
baseline years for SIPs, conformity
determinations and other emissions
inventory requirements helps to achieve
this goal.
Alternatively, EPA has also proposed
2005 as a baseline year for conformity
purposes (Option 3) because this year is
also relevant for 2006 PM2.5 areas. The
year 2005 is more recent than 2002, and
2005 data would also be available for
other inventory purposes such as the
AERR. In addition, most 2006 PM2.5
areas will be designated nonattainment
based in part on air quality monitoring
data from the year 2005. EPA is required
to make nonattainment designations for
PM2.5 based on the most recent three
years of air quality data, i.e., 2005–2007
data for most 2006 PM2.5 areas. For this
reason, 2005 is being proposed as a
baseline year for conformity purposes.
Whereas Options 1 and 3 would apply
specifically to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA proposes in Option 2 to generalize
the language for the baseline year for
areas designated under any PM2.5
NAAQS established after 1997. Given
that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to
review the NAAQS for possible revision
once every five years, adopting Option
2 would standardize the process for
selecting an appropriate baseline year to
use in meeting conformity requirements
before SIP budgets have been
established for any future PM2.5
NAAQS. This would enable EPA, MPOs
and other transportation planners to
identify the appropriate baseline year
for conformity purposes without EPA
having to amend the conformity
regulation first.
In other words, Option 2 would allow
EPA to identify an appropriate baseline
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23030
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
year in an expeditious manner for
transportation conformity purposes. As
a result, MPOs and other transportation
planners would understand conformity
requirements for future PM2.5 NAAQS
revisions more quickly, which may, in
turn, also allow more time to prepare
and complete necessary conformity
determinations.
EPA believes that Option 2 would
result in an appropriate baseline year for
a given PM2.5 NAAQS. Since Option 2
is based on the same criteria that have
been used for proposed Option 1 and for
establishing baseline years for other
NAAQS (58 FR 62191, 69 FR 40014),
EPA believes this option would also
result in an environmentally protective
and legal baseline year for conformity
under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and any
future PM2.5 NAAQS revisions.
Finalizing Option 2 would most likely
result in a baseline year of 2008 for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
If the regulatory text for this option
referred to the AERR requirement, the
option would ensure that areas
designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as areas
designated for revised PM2.5 NAAQS in
the future, would use the year for which
the most recent emissions inventories
are required to be submitted as of the
effective date of EPA’s final
designations. The regulatory text for
Option 2 could also be written to refer
to the year that will be used as the
baseline year for SIP development for a
given PM2.5 NAAQS.
In either case, under Option 2 EPA
would most likely clarify what year is
to be used for the baseline year test by
issuing a memorandum. If this option
were finalized, EPA would issue such a
memorandum prior to conformity
requirements applying.
EPA requests comment on all of these
options. Though commenters can
simply express a preference, providing
rationale for a preference is especially
useful to EPA. In particular, EPA seeks
comment on whether state and local
agencies believe that establishing the
baseline year using Option 2 presents
any implementation concerns, and if so,
how EPA could address such concerns.
V. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas That Do
Not Have Adequate or Approved SIP
Budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
This part of the proposal discusses
regional conformity tests for
nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS that do not have adequate or
approved PM2.5 SIP budgets for the 1997
NAAQS. This proposal would apply to
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas that
were not covered by the 1997 PM2.5
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
NAAQS, as well as nonattainment areas
for both PM2.5 NAAQS that do not have
an adequate or approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP
budget. EPA would address conformity
tests for these areas under proposed
section 93.109(j) of the conformity rule.
See Section VI. of today’s proposal for
conformity tests in 2006 PM2.5 areas that
have adequate or approved SIP budgets
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Note that this section of the preamble
proposes new requirements for
conformity only under the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. This proposal does not address
the requirements for demonstrating
conformity for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
A. Conformity After 2006 PM2.5 SIP
Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
1. Proposal
Once a SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is submitted with a budget(s) that EPA
has found adequate or approved, EPA
proposes that the budget test must be
used in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118
to complete all applicable regional
emissions analyses for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Conformity would be
demonstrated if the transportation
system emissions reflecting the
proposed transportation plan, TIP, or
project not from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP were less
than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budget level defined by the
SIP as being consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements.
The first SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS could be a control strategy SIP
required by the Clean Air Act (i.e.,
reasonable further progress SIP or
attainment demonstration) or a
maintenance plan. States could also
voluntarily choose to submit an ‘‘early
progress SIP’’ prior to required SIP
submissions. Early progress SIPs must
demonstrate a significant level of future
emissions reductions from a previous
year’s emissions. For example, an area
could submit an early progress SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that
demonstrates a specific percentage of
emissions reductions (e.g., 5–10%) in an
area’s attainment year from the baseline
year emissions (e.g., 2008). An early
progress SIP would include emissions
inventories for all emissions sources for
the entire 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area and would meet applicable
requirements for reasonable further
progress SIPs. EPA has discussed this
option in past conformity rule
preambles, e.g., the July 1, 2004
transportation conformity final rule (69
FR 40028), and many states have
established early progress SIP budgets
for conformity purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Whatever the case, the interim
emissions test(s) would no longer be
used for direct PM2.5 or a relevant
precursor once an adequate or approved
SIP budget for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is established for the pollutant or
precursor. EPA encourages states to
develop their future 2006 PM2.5 SIPs in
consultation with MPOs, state and local
transportation agencies, and local air
quality agencies to facilitate future
conformity determinations. Once EPA’s
nonattainment designations are
finalized, EPA Regions would be
available to assist states in the
development of early progress SIPs for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, if desired.
2. Rationale
EPA believes that this proposal meets
statutory requirements for conformity
determinations that occur after SIP
budgets are available for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act states that transportation activities
must ‘‘conform to an implementation
plan * * * ’’ (SIP) and states further
that conformity to an implementation
plan means conformity to the SIP’s
purpose. Once EPA finds a budget for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS adequate or
approves the SIP that includes it, the
budget test provides the best means to
determine whether transportation plans
and TIPs meet the statutory obligations
in Clean Air Act sections 176(c)(1)(A)
and (B) for that NAAQS. That is, the
budget test best shows that
transportation plans and TIPs conform
to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS and achieving
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS
(176(c)(1)(A)); and best confirms the
requirement that transportation plans
and TIPs not cause or contribute to any
new violation, worsen an existing
violation, or delay timely attainment or
any required interim milestone
(176(c)(1)(B)). The budget test also best
demonstrates that transportation plans
and TIPs comply with the statutory
obligation to be consistent with the
emissions estimates in SIPs, according
to Clean Air Act section 176(c)(2)(A). By
being consistent with the on-road
mobile source emissions levels in the
SIP, transportation planners can ensure
that their activities remain consistent
with state and local air quality goals to
protect public health.
B. Conformity Before 2006 PM2.5 SIP
Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
1. Proposal
EPA is proposing that these 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment areas meet one of
the following interim emissions tests for
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conformity determinations conducted
before adequate or approved 2006 24hour PM2.5 SIP budgets are established:
• The build-no-greater-than-no-build
test (‘‘build/no-build test’’), or
• The no-greater-than-baseline year
emissions test (‘‘baseline year test’’).
Again, this part of the proposal would
apply only in cases where a 2006 PM2.5
area does not have adequate or
approved SIP budgets for either the
2006 or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Section VI.
of the proposal covers the case where a
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area has a SIP
budget for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This proposal is similar to the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.119(e) for nonattainment areas for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s proposal
would allow 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas without SIP budgets to choose
between the two interim emissions tests,
rather than require that one specific test
or both tests be completed. Conformity
would be demonstrated under the
proposal if the transportation emissions
reflecting the proposed transportation
plan or TIP (build) were less than or
equal to either the emissions from the
existing transportation system (nobuild), or the level of motor vehicle
emissions in the baseline year, as
described in 40 CFR 93.119. A full
discussion of the proposed baseline year
options for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS can
be found in Section IV. of today’s
notice.
2. Rationale
EPA believes that this proposal meets
statutory requirements for conformity
determinations that occur before SIP
budgets are available for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA believes it is appropriate
to provide flexibility and allow 2006
PM2.5 areas to meet only one interim
emissions test before adequate or
approved PM2.5 SIP budgets are
established. This proposal meets
statutory requirements and parallels the
current rule’s requirements for 1997
PM2.5 nonattainment areas (69 FR
40028–40031), which were upheld by
an October 2006 court decision.
Environmental Defense v. EPA, 467 F.3d
1329 (DC Cir. 2006).8 In addition, this
8 Petitioners challenged several aspects of the
conformity regulations. In its decision, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
93.119(b)(2), (d), and (e) ‘‘because the Act does not
require that activities involving transportation
actually reduce pollutants, but merely not frustrate
an implementation plan’s purpose to reduce overall
emissions.’’ The court also upheld EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 93.118(b), (d), and (e)(6). The
court vacated a narrow provision at 40 CFR
93.109(e)(2)(v) which had allowed 8-hour ozone
areas to avoid using their existing 1-hour budgets
under certain circumstances. This provision was
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
proposal is consistent with past
rulemakings for interim emissions test
requirements for other pollutants, as
described below.
Using either the build/no-build test or
baseline year test is sufficient to meet
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B)
requirements that transportation
activities do not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment or achievement
of interim reductions or milestones. The
baseline year and the build/no-build
tests are sufficient for demonstrating
conformity when an area does not have
a SIP budget for a portion of a
nonattainment area.
Based on the Clean Air Act, EPA has
previously determined that only ozone
and CO areas of higher classifications 9
are required to also satisfy section
176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requirements during the
time period before adequate or approved
SIP budgets are available (58 FR 3782–
3783; 62 FR 43784–43785; 69 FR 40018,
40019–40031). As a result, the current
rule requires these ozone and CO areas
to meet both interim emissions tests,
rather than only one test.
However, the current conformity rule
already allows areas designated for the
other pollutants, as well as the lower
classifications of ozone and CO, to
conform based on only one interim
emissions test, rather than having to
complete two tests and thereby
contribute further reductions towards
attainment. EPA proposes that the 2006
PM2.5 areas also be required to meet
only one of the interim emissions tests
to meet the Clean Air Act’s
requirements in section 176(c)(1)(B). For
more information and the full rationale
for allowing some areas to conform
based on only one interim emissions
test, see the November 24, 1993 final
rule (58 FR 62197) that addressed
interim requirements for PM10 and NO2
areas, and the July 1, 2004 final rule (69
FR 40029) that established interim
requirements for 1997 PM2.5 areas.
EPA believes that the no-greater-thanbaseline year interim emissions test is
an appropriate test for meeting section
176(c)(1)(B) requirements in 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas. By definition, the
no-greater-than baseline year test
ensures that emissions from on-road
mobile sources are no greater than they
were during the baseline year that will
most likely be used for 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS SIP planning purposes. If future
on-road emissions do not increase above
removed from the transportation conformity
regulation in the January 24, 2008 final rule.
9 That is, ozone areas classified as moderate and
above, and CO areas classified as moderate with
design value greater than 12.7 ppm and serious.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23031
their base year levels, applicable
statutory requirements are met.
Finally, the build/no-build test would
also allow a 2006 PM2.5 area to meet
statutory requirements. As described
above, the build/no-build test requires a
regional emissions analysis to
demonstrate that the emissions from the
transportation system in future years, if
it included the proposed action and all
other expected regionally significant
projects, would be less than the
emissions from the current
transportation system in future years.
Since a new transportation plan, TIP, or
project (in the build scenario) could not
result in regional emissions that are
higher than those that would occur in
the absence of new transportation
activities (in the no-build scenario) for
the system, the Clean Air Act section
176(c)(1)(B) requirements are met. For
these reasons, EPA believes that the
build/no-build test continues to be an
appropriate interim test prior to SIP
budgets being available.
C. General Implementation of Regional
Tests
This proposal would apply the
existing conformity rule’s general
requirements for PM2.5 regional
emissions analyses in 2006 PM2.5 areas
that do not have adequate or approved
SIP budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is including this discussion of the
existing regulation’s requirements for
clarity, to help readers understand how
the existing regulation would apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA is
not soliciting comment on these existing
requirements that we are not proposing
to change. The following examples are
intended to illustrate how today’s
proposal would be implemented in
practice for 2006 PM2.5 areas without
adequate or approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP
budgets.
1. Decisions Made Through the
Interagency Consultation Process
The existing rule’s consultation
process would be used to determine the
test for completing any regional
emissions analysis for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, as required by 40 CFR
93.105(c)(1)(i). The existing interagency
consultation process would also be used
to determine the latest assumptions and
models for generating motor vehicle
emissions regardless of the test used.
Refer to Section IV. of this preamble for
details about generating baseline year
emissions if that interim emissions test
is selected for a given conformity
determination.
The consultation process would also
be used to determine which analysis
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23032
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
years should be selected for regional
emissions analyses. Before an adequate
or approved 2006 PM2.5 budget is
available, areas would be able to choose,
through interagency consultation, either
interim emissions test for each
conformity determination. However, the
same test would be required to be used
for each analysis year for a given
determination. EPA believes that
sufficient flexibility exists without
mixing and matching interim emissions
tests for different analysis years within
one conformity determination, which is
unnecessarily complicated and may
indicate that an area would not conform
using one test consistently.
2. General Conformity Test
Requirements for All Areas
Regional emissions analyses under
this proposal would be implemented
through existing conformity
requirements such as 40 CFR 93.118,
93.119, and 93.122. For example, the
existing conformity rule requires that
only certain years within the
transportation plan (or alternate
timeframe) be examined. Under 40 CFR
93.118(d), the following years would be
analyzed for the budget test with 2006
PM2.5 SIP budgets:
• The attainment year for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (if it is within the
timeframe of the transportation plan and
conformity determination);
• The last year of the timeframe of the
conformity determination (40 CFR
93.106(d)); and
• Intermediate years as necessary so
that analysis years are no more than ten
years apart.
For the interim emissions tests, the
existing conformity rule (40 CFR
93.119(g)) requires the following
analysis years:
• A year no more than five years
beyond the year in which the
conformity determination is being
made;
• The last year of the timeframe of the
conformity determination (as described
in 40 CFR 93.106(d));
• Intermediate years as necessary so
that analysis years are no more than 10
years apart.
See the relevant regulatory sections of
the conformity rule and the July 1, 2004
final rule preamble for further
background on how tests have been
implemented for other pollutants and
standards (69 FR 40020).
3. Cases Involving Multi-Jurisdictional
Areas
In July 2004, EPA issued a guidance
document for implementing conformity
requirements in multi-jurisdictional
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
areas.10 Multi-jurisdictional areas are
nonattainment and maintenance areas
with multiple MPOs, one or more MPOs
and a donut area, or multi-state areas.
EPA believes that this guidance should
also apply to 2006 PM2.5 areas with
multiple jurisdictions.
There are two parts of this existing
guidance that are most relevant for
implementing conformity for multijurisdictional 2006 PM2.5 areas that do
not have adequate or approved 1997
PM2.5 SIP budgets. Part 2 of this
guidance describes how conformity
would be implemented in all 2006 PM2.5
areas before adequate or approved SIP
budgets are available for an applicable
NAAQS. Part 3 of this guidance is
relevant for meeting conformity
requirements once adequate or
approved 2006 PM2.5 SIP budgets are
available. For example, Part 3 of this
guidance describes how a state or MPO
in a multi-state nonattainment area can
operate independently from other
states/MPOs for conformity purposes
once adequate or approved SIP budgets
for a state are established. This same
conformity guidance would also apply
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in these
types of areas. Part 3 would also apply
to the cases where subarea budgets are
established for a nonattainment area
within one state with multiple MPOs.
For further information, please refer to
EPA’s 2004 multi-jurisdictional
conformity guidance.
VI. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006
PM2.5 Areas That Have Adequate or
Approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP Budgets
This section proposes the conformity
tests for completing regional emissions
analyses in areas designated for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with adequate or
approved SIP budgets for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS that cover either part or all of
the 2006 PM2.5 area. EPA proposes to
address conformity tests for these areas
under a new section 93.109(k). See
Section V. of today’s proposal for
conformity tests in 2006 PM2.5 areas that
do not have an adequate or approved
1997 PM2.5 SIP budget. As stated
elsewhere, EPA is not proposing any
changes in conformity requirements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
10 ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004,
Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity
Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standard,’’ EPA40–B–04–012,
July 2004, found on EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/
420b04012.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Conformity After 2006 PM2.5 SIP
Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
1. Proposal
Once a SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is submitted with budget(s) that EPA
has found adequate or approved, EPA
proposes that the budget test must be
used in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118
to complete all applicable regional
emissions analyses for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Conformity would be
demonstrated if the transportation
system emissions reflecting the
proposed transportation plan, TIP, or
project not from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP were less
than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budget level defined by the
SIP as being consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements.
The first submitted SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS may be an attainment
demonstration or a maintenance plan.
Nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS could also voluntarily choose
to submit an ‘‘early progress SIP’’ to
establish budgets for conformity
purposes prior to required SIPs. See
Section V. for further details on
requirements for early progress SIPs.
EPA has discussed this option in past
conformity rule preamble, e.g., the July
1, 2004 transportation conformity final
rule (69 FR 40028), and some states
have established early progress SIP
budgets for conformity purposes.
Whatever the case, interim emissions
tests and/or any existing 1997 PM2.5 SIP
budget would no longer be used for
conformity in 2006 PM2.5 areas for direct
PM2.5 or a relevant precursor once an
adequate or approved SIP budget for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is established for
the pollutant or precursor. Once a SIP
budget for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is
adequate or approved, the budget test
for 2006 PM2.5 conformity would be
done based on 24-hour emissions (i.e.,
tons per day). As noted earlier in
Section III.D., areas that were also
designated for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
would continue to meet their existing
conformity requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, which would include a
regional emissions analysis based on
annual emissions (i.e., tons per year).
The conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.105
requires consultation on the
development of SIPs; EPA encourages
states to consult with MPOs, state and
local transportation agencies, and local
air quality agencies sufficiently early
when developing 2006 PM2.5 SIPs to
facilitate future conformity
determinations. Once EPA’s
nonattainment designations are
finalized, EPA Regions would be
available to assist states in developing
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
• Scenario 2: The 2006 PM2.5 area is
smaller than (and completely within)
the 1997 PM2.5 area boundary.
2. Rationale
• Scenario 3: The 2006 PM2.5 area is
EPA’s rationale for the use of the
larger than (and contains) the 1997
budget test once adequate or approved
PM2.5 area boundary.
SIP budgets addressing the 2006 PM2.5
• Scenario 4: The 2006 PM2.5 area
NAAQS are available is found in
boundary overlaps with a portion of the
Section V.A.2. of this preamble, and not 1997 PM2.5 area boundary.
repeated here.
These four boundary scenarios are the
same as the four boundary scenarios
B. Conformity Before 2006 PM2.5 SIP
EPA described for the 1997 8-hour
Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
ozone areas that had existing 1-hour
1. Proposal
ozone budgets. EPA’s 2004 guidance
entitled, ‘‘Companion Guidance for the
Where all or a portion of the 2006
July 1, 2004 Final Transportation
PM2.5 area is covered by adequate or
Conformity Rule, Conformity
approved 1997 PM2.5 budgets, EPA is
Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
proposing that the 1997 budgets would
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
be used for 2006 PM2.5 conformity. In
for Existing and New Air Quality
addition, in the case where the 1997
Standards,’’ (EPA40–B–04–012),
budget does not cover the entire 2006
PM2.5 area, EPA is proposing that one of contains diagrams of the four scenarios
for 8-hour ozone areas. Readers may be
the interim emissions tests would also
be used, as described below. Section IV. interested in reviewing these diagrams
as they consider the following
of this proposal covers the proposed
proposals. This document can be found
change to the baseline year test and
on EPA’s transportation conformity Web
Section V. covers interim emissions
tests in 2006 PM2.5 areas before adequate site at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/policy/
or approved SIP budgets for the 2006
420b04012.pdf.
PM2.5 NAAQS are available.
The following paragraphs describe
Please note that this proposal is for
today’s proposals for each possible
completing conformity under the 2006
scenario for 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
PM2.5 NAAQS before 2006 PM2.5 SIP
areas.
budgets are established. For areas
Scenario 1: 2006 PM2.5 areas where
designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS where all, or a portion, of the nonattainment boundary is exactly
the same as the 1997 PM2.5 boundary. In
the area is covered by adequate or
this case, the 2006 and 1997 PM2.5
approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets, EPA
nonattainment boundaries cover exactly
is proposing that the budget test using
1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets serve as a proxy the same geographic area. EPA proposes
to require such areas to meet the budget
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS until 2006
test for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS using
PM2.5 SIP budgets are available.
existing adequate or approved SIP
Many nonattainment areas for the
budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS may have adequate
Scenario 2: 2006 PM2.5 areas where
or approved SIP budgets for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For areas that use the boundary is smaller than and within
the 1997 PM2.5 boundary. In this case,
annual PM2.5 budgets to meet 2006
the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area is
PM2.5 requirements, a regional
emissions analysis would be done based smaller than and completely
on an analysis of annual, rather than 24- encompassed by the 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment boundary. EPA proposes
hour, emissions (i.e., tons per year).
to require such areas to meet one of the
Today’s proposal is based on EPA’s
following versions of the budget test:
experience in establishing conformity
• The budget test using the subset or
requirements for areas designated for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that had portion of existing adequate or approved
1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets that applies to
SIP budgets for the 1-hour ozone
the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area,
NAAQS, found in 40 CFR 93.109(e)(2).
where such portion(s) can be
This proposal covers the four possible
appropriately identified; or
scenarios that could result when areas
• The budget test using the existing
are designated nonattainment for the
adequate or approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 11
budgets for the entire 1997 PM2.5
• Scenario 1: The 2006 PM2.5 area
nonattainment area. In this case, any
nonattainment boundary is the same as
additional reductions beyond those
the 1997 PM2.5 area boundary.
addressed by control measures in the
1997 PM2.5 SIP would be required to
11 Although all four scenarios are included in this
come from the 2006 PM2.5
proposal, most of the 2006 PM2.5 areas that have
1997 PM2.5 budgets will be Scenario 1 areas.
nonattainment area as described below.
early progress SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, if desired.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23033
Under today’s proposal, areas could
choose either test each time they make
a conformity determination. For any
particular conformity determination,
however, the same choice would have to
be used for each analysis year. EPA
believes that to do otherwise would be
unnecessarily complicated and may
indicate that one test option used
consistently for all analysis years would
not demonstrate conformity. The
consultation process would be used to
determine whether using a portion of a
1997 PM2.5 SIP budget is appropriate
and feasible, and if so, how deriving
such a portion would be accomplished.
See the preamble of the July 1, 2004
final rule (69 FR 40022–40023) for a
description of a similar provision for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing that a conformity
determination using the entire 1997
PM2.5 budget would include a
comparison between the on-road
regional emissions produced in the
entire 1997 PM2.5 area and the existing
1997 PM2.5 SIP budget(s). However, if
additional reductions are required to
meet conformity beyond those produced
by control measures in the 1997 PM2.5
SIP budgets, EPA proposes that those
reductions must be obtained from
within the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area only, since the conformity
determination would be for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Scenario 3: 2006 PM2.5 areas where
the boundary is larger than the 1997
PM2.5 boundary. In this case, an entire
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance area would be within a
larger 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area
and the 1997 PM2.5 budgets would not
cover the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area. EPA proposes to
require such areas to meet one of the
following:
• The budget test using the 1997
PM2.5 budget(s) for the 1997 PM2.5 area,
that is, the portion of the 2006 PM2.5
area that lies within the 1997 PM2.5 area
boundary, and one of the interim
emissions tests for either the remaining
portion of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area, the entire 2006 PM2.5 area, or the
entire portion of the 2006 PM2.5 area
within an individual state, if 1997 PM2.5
budgets are established in each state in
a multi-state area; or
• The budget test using the existing
adequate or approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP
budgets for the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area.12
12 While the existing regulation for 8-hour ozone
areas does not explicitly contain this option, it was
addressed in the preamble to the final rule
addressing 8-hour ozone areas (July 1, 2004, 69 FR
40027).
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23034
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Under this proposal, the budget test
would be completed according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118, and the
interim emissions test requirements of
40 CFR 93.119.
Once an area selects a particular
interim emissions test and the
geographic area it will address, EPA
proposes that the same test must be
used consistently for all analysis years.
The consultation process would have to
be used to determine which analysis
years should be selected for regional
emissions analyses where the budget
test and interim emissions tests are
used. It may be possible to choose
analysis years that would satisfy both
the budget and interim emissions test
requirements for areas using both tests
prior to adequate or approved 2006
PM2.5 SIP budgets being established.
Further information regarding the
implementation of these requirements is
illustrated later in this section.
Scenario 4: 2006 PM2.5 areas where
the boundary partially overlaps a
portion of the 1997 PM2.5 boundary. In
this case, the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment boundaries partially
overlap. As in the case with Scenario 3
areas, the 1997 PM2.5 budgets would not
cover the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area. However, unlike
Scenario 3 areas, the 2006 area does not
contain the entire 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area.
Therefore, 1997 PM2.5 budgets cannot be
the sole test of conformity for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, since a conformity
determination must include a regional
emissions analysis that includes the
entire 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area.
EPA proposes that 2006 PM2.5 areas
covered under this scenario would use
the 1997 PM2.5 budget(s) to meet the
budget test for the portion of the 1997
PM2.5 area and budgets that overlap with
the 2006 PM2.5 area boundary, and one
of the interim emissions tests for either
the remaining portion of the 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area, the entire 2006
PM2.5 area, or the entire portion of the
2006 PM2.5 area within an individual
state, if 1997 PM2.5 budgets are
established in each state in a multi-state
area. Under this proposal, the budget
test would be completed according to
the requirements in 40 CFR 93.118, and
the interim emissions test requirements
of 40 CFR 93.119.
Similar to Scenario 3 areas, once an
area selects a particular interim
emissions test and the geographic area
it will address, EPA proposes that the
same test must be used consistently for
all analysis years. Further information
regarding the implementation of these
requirements is found in the discussion
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
above for Scenario 3, and illustrated
later in this section.
2. Rationale
General. EPA believes that using the
existing 1997 PM2.5 budgets as a proxy
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is required
by the Clean Air Act. In Environmental
Defense v. EPA, 467 F.3d 1329 (DC Cir.
2006), the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit held that
where a motor vehicle emissions budget
developed for the revoked 1-hour ozone
NAAQS existed in an approved SIP, that
budget must be used to demonstrate
conformity to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
until the SIP is revised to include
budgets for the new NAAQS. EPA
reflected the court’s decision for ozone
conformity tests in its January 24, 2008
final rule (73 FR 4434).
While the Environmental Defense
case concerned ozone, EPA believes the
court’s holding is relevant for other
pollutants for which conformity must be
demonstrated. Consequently, EPA
believes that 2006 PM2.5 areas that have
1997 PM2.5 budgets must use them for
2006 PM2.5 conformity before 2006
PM2.5 SIP budgets are established.
The use of the 1997 PM2.5 budgets as
a proxy for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS also
would ensure that Clean Air Act
requirements are met. Section 176(c) of
the Clean Air Act requires that
transportation activities may not cause
new violations, increase the frequency
or severity of existing violations, or
delay timely attainment. In these areas,
the budgets for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS have been the measure of PM2.5
conformity thus far, and have been
consistent with these areas’ PM2.5 air
quality progress to date. Therefore,
using budgets that address the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS where no other
PM2.5 budgets are available ensures that
the requirements of Clean Air Act 176(c)
are met. Once 2006 PM2.5 budgets are
found adequate or approved, the budget
test for that NAAQS provides the best
means to determine whether
transportation plans, TIPs, or projects
meet Clean Air Act requirements.
EPA also believes the budget test is a
better environmental measure than the
interim emissions tests when SIP
budgets for a pollutant or precursor are
available. As EPA reiterated in its July
1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40026), when
motor vehicle emissions budgets have
been established by SIPs, they provide
a more relevant basis for conformity
determinations than the interim
emissions tests. EPA believes this is true
even though in most cases the budgets
established for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
would address an annual rather than a
24-hour NAAQS. A 1997 PM2.5 budget
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
represents the state’s best estimate of the
level of permissible PM2.5 emissions
from the on-road transportation sector
for a particular area. Such a budget is
created based on local information for
that particular area—its population, its
estimated VMT and other travel data, its
transit availability, its particular vehicle
fleet, its local controls, and so forth.
Hence EPA believes using budgets,
designed for specific areas and based on
information from those specific areas, is
preferable to using either of the more
generic interim emissions tests. The
baseline year and the build/no-build
tests are sufficient for demonstrating
conformity when an area does not have
a budget for a portion of a
nonattainment area. However, these
interim emissions tests usually do not
ensure that transportation emissions
promote progress for the NAAQS to the
same extent that the use of motor
vehicle emissions budgets do.
In addition, using the 1997 PM2.5
budgets for 2006 PM2.5 conformity
purposes may also streamline the
conformity process for areas designated
nonattainment for both the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These areas would
already be using 1997 PM2.5 budgets for
conformity of that NAAQS. In areas
where the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment boundaries are the same
(Scenario 1), today’s proposal would
result in having to meet only one type
of test—the budget test—to demonstrate
conformity for both the 1997 and 2006
NAAQS.
For multi-state 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas, today’s proposal
would also preserve states’ ability to do
conformity independently from one
another, if a state has already
established budgets for its own state
(and/or MPO(s)) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. Further explanation and
examples are given below in Section
VI.C.
Scenario 1 and 2 areas. Today’s
proposal for conformity in 2006 PM2.5
areas before budgets that address that
NAAQS are available is largely
consistent with the process that EPA
finalized for 8-hour ozone areas
designated under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS where 1-hour ozone budgets
exist (69 FR 40021–40028). Our
proposals for Scenario 1 and 2 areas are
identical to the final rule for these 8hour ozone areas. Scenario 2 2006 PM2.5
areas would also have the choice of
adjusting the existing 1997 PM2.5
budgets for the new geographical area.
As we indicated in the November 5,
2003 proposed rule for the 8-hour ozone
areas (68 FR 62702), using the relevant
portion of existing budgets for purposes
of conducting conformity
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
determinations for a different NAAQS of
the same pollutant is appropriate since
the budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
would only be used as a proxy for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These 1997 PM2.5
budgets still have to be met in the 1997
PM2.5 areas.
Scenario 3 and 4 areas. Some
Scenario 3 areas and all Scenario 4 areas
would also have to meet one of the
interim emissions tests, for either the
portion of the 2006 PM2.5 area not
covered by the 1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets,
the entire PM2.5 area, or the entire
portion of the 2006 PM2.5 area within an
individual state. As explained in the
November 2003 proposed rule for 8hour ozone areas (68 FR 62702), in these
cases budgets cannot be the sole test of
conformity because a conformity
determination must include a regional
emissions analysis that covers the entire
nonattainment area.
However, some Scenario 3 areas may
be able to demonstrate conformity
without an interim emissions test. For
Scenario 3 PM2.5 areas, EPA is
proposing an option that similar 8-hour
ozone areas also have: the entire larger,
newly designated area could meet
budgets established for the smaller,
existing area. In the July 1, 2004 final
rule, EPA clarified that 8-hour ozone
areas have this ability. In that final rule,
EPA noted that while this option was
not explicitly addressed by the
regulatory text, it would be consistent
with the requirements and is available
to interested 8-hour ozone areas (69 FR
40027). Given the benefit of that history,
EPA is proposing to adopt regulatory
text for this option for Scenario 3 2006
PM2.5 areas.
Finally, EPA believes that statutory
requirements are met under the
proposal to use either interim emissions
test when no adequate or approved
PM2.5 SIP budgets are available. See
further rationale regarding the flexibility
offered by today’s proposal in Section V.
C. General Implementation of Regional
Tests
This proposal would apply the
existing conformity rule’s general
requirements for PM2.5 regional
emissions analyses to all 2006 PM2.5
areas. As described in Section V.C., EPA
is including this discussion of the
existing regulation’s requirements for
clarity, to help readers understand how
the existing regulation would apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA is
not soliciting comment on existing
requirements that we are not proposing
to change.
The following examples are intended
to illustrate how today’s proposal would
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
be implemented in practice for 2006
PM2.5 areas with adequate or approved
1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets.
1. General Conformity Test
Requirements for Most Areas
Regional emissions analyses under
this proposal would be implemented
through existing conformity
requirements such as 40 CFR 93.118,
93.119, and 93.122. For example, the
existing conformity rule requires that
only certain years within the
transportation plan (or alternate
timeframe) be examined.
Although four scenarios are described
in Section VI.B. for the time period
before 2006 PM2.5 SIP budgets are
available, most areas with 1997 PM2.5
SIP budgets will be covered by Scenario
1 (i.e., the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
boundaries are the same). Under
Scenario 1, the consultation process
would be used to determine which
analysis years should be selected for
regional emissions analyses for the
budget test. The existing conformity rule
at 40 CFR 93.118(d) requires the
following analysis years for this test:
• The attainment year for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (if it is within the
timeframe of the transportation plan and
conformity determination);
• The last year of the timeframe of the
conformity determination (40 CFR
93.106(d)); and
• Intermediate years as necessary so
that analysis years are no more than 10
years apart.
Areas covered by this proposal would
also be determining conformity for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, using adequate or
approved budgets established for that
NAAQS.
See the relevant regulatory sections of
the conformity rule and the July 1, 2004
final rule preamble for further
background on how tests have been
implemented for other pollutants and
standards (69 FR 40020).
2. Cases Involving Multi-Jurisdictional
Areas
As described earlier, EPA issued a
guidance document in 2004 for
implementing conformity requirements
in multi-jurisdictional areas. There are
two parts of this existing guidance that
are relevant for implementing
conformity for these areas. Part 3 of the
existing guidance describes how
conformity would be implemented in all
2006 PM2.5 areas once adequate or
approved SIP budgets for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are established. Part 4 of this
guidance is relevant for meeting
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23035
conformity requirements when only
1997 PM2.5 budgets are available.13
This guidance is also applicable for
conformity purposes in multi-state and
multi-MPO areas. For example, in multistate 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas
where each state has its own 1997 PM2.5
SIP budgets, the states could do
conformity for the 2006 NAAQS (as well
as the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS)
independently of each other. In
addition, MPOs in areas that have
subarea budgets for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS could use these subarea
budgets for conformity to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
For further information, please refer
to Section V.C. and EPA’s 2004 multijurisdictional conformity guidance.
VII. Other Conformity Requirements for
2006 PM2.5 Areas
The existing regulations already
provide the remaining requirements that
will be necessary for conformity under
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes
that any existing conformity
requirements that are listed for ‘‘PM2.5’’
areas that are not being revised in
today’s proposal would also apply to
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance areas. These provisions
have already been promulgated, based
on past rulemakings and rationale, and
EPA is not proposing any changes to
these provisions. Therefore, EPA is not
requesting public comment on these
provisions in today’s proposal.
For example, a hot-spot analysis is
required for certain projects in any
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance
areas before such projects can be found
to conform. These requirements are
found in §§ 93.116(a) and § 93.123(b) of
the current conformity rule, although
please note that EPA, for other reasons,
is proposing today to clarify
amendments to section 93.116(a) of the
conformity rule. See Section IX. of this
preamble for details. Any hot-spot
analysis requirements that were
promulgated for ‘‘PM2.5’’ areas in the
conformity rule do not need to be
amended because they would already
apply to 2006 PM2.5 areas for this
NAAQS.
A hot-spot analysis in an area
designated for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS would have to
demonstrate that the project meets the
conformity rule’s hot-spot requirements
for all of the PM2.5 standards for which
the area is designated nonattainment.
13 This section of the guidance covers how 8-hour
ozone areas that have 1-hour ozone budgets would
proceed with developing their regional emissions
analyses and making conformity determinations,
which is analogous to any 2006 PM2.5 areas that
have 1997 budgets in the interim.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23036
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
For example, if an area is designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual
standard, and the 2006 24-hour
standard, the analysis would have to
consider both standards. Similarly, in
the case where an area is designated
nonattainment for both the 1997 annual
and 24-hour standards, as well as the
2006 24-hour standard, the analysis
would have to consider all of these
standards. (See Section IX. for more
information regarding the requirements
of hot-spot analyses.)
Please refer to the March 10, 2006
final rule for additional information
regarding hot-spot analyses (47 FR
12468) and EPA and FHWA’s current
guidance for implementing this
requirement (Transportation Conformity
Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot
Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,
March 2006, EPA420–B–06–902).
Section 93.117 of the conformity rule,
which requires project-level conformity
determinations to comply with any
PM2.5 control measures in an approved
SIP, would also apply for conformity
under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Again,
EPA promulgated this requirement in
general for nonattainment and
maintenance areas under PM2.5 air
quality NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not
reopening this provision for comment in
today’s proposal, since it is unnecessary
to do so in order to implement
conformity requirements under the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. See EPA’s July 2004 final
rule for further information on this
requirement (69 FR 40036–40037).
EPA will work with PM2.5
nonattainment areas as needed to ensure
that state and local agencies can meet
existing and new conformity
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in a timely and efficient manner. EPA
requests comment on whether
additional information or training will
be necessary to ensure proper
conformity implementation under the
existing rule and today’s proposal for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If your agency
submits comments, please be as specific
as possible regarding what types of
situations and issues may need to be
addressed in future implementation of
PM2.5 conformity requirements.
VIII. Transportation Conformity in
PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas and the Revocation of the Annual
PM10 NAAQS
A. Background
On October 17, 2006, EPA issued a
final rule establishing changes to the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS (71 FR 61144).
The October 2006 final rule retained the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 μg/m3, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS of 50
μg/m3. EPA made a commitment in this
October 2006 final rule to provide
information regarding how
transportation conformity will be
implemented under the revised PM10
NAAQS (71 FR 61215). To satisfy this
commitment, EPA described which
conformity tests would apply in PM10
nonattainment and maintenance areas
(‘‘PM10 areas’’) in a guidance
document.14 Today’s proposal to update
the conformity rule also responds to this
commitment.
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(5)
requires conformity only in areas that
are designated nonattainment or
maintenance for a given pollutant and
NAAQS. Therefore, transportation
conformity has continued to apply to all
PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas because transportation conformity
applies based on an area’s status as a
nonattainment or maintenance area, and
PM10 designations were not affected by
the October 2006 final rule. As stated in
the October 2006 final rule, ‘‘both
transportation and general conformity
will continue to apply to all PM10
nonattainment and maintenance areas
since no designations are changing’’ (71
FR 61215).
As of the effective date of the October
2006 rule, conformity determinations in
PM10 areas have been required only for
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The October
2006 final rule stated, ‘‘However,
because EPA is revoking the annual
PM10 NAAQS in this final rule, after the
effective date of this rule conformity
determinations in PM10 areas will only
be required for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS; conformity to the annual PM10
NAAQS will no longer be required’’ (71
FR 61215). Please refer to the October
17, 2006 final rule for additional
information (71 FR 61144).
B. Proposed Definitions for PM10
NAAQS
EPA proposes to add new definitions
to 40 CFR 93.101 of the conformity rule
to distinguish between the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS and the annual PM10 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing these two definitions
to simplify the changes necessary for
other conformity rule provisions, as
described further below. The addition of
these definitions parallels the existing
definitions in 40 CFR 93.101 for the 1hour ozone NAAQS and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
14 Transportation Conformity in PM
10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and the
Revocation of the Annual PM10 Standard,
September 25, 2008, found on EPA’s Web site at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
policy.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Proposal for Conformity Tests in PM10
Areas With Budgets
EPA proposes to update one section of
the regulation, consistent with the
October 2006 final rule and the
September 25, 2008 guidance entitled,
‘‘Transportation Conformity in PM10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
and the Revocation of the Annual PM10
NAAQS.’’ This proposal would be
consistent with how PM10
transportation conformity requirements
have been applied since the revocation
of the annual PM10 NAAQS was
effective.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
update 40 CFR 93.109(g) so that:
• PM10 areas that have adequate or
approved SIP budgets for both the 24hour and annual PM10 NAAQS would
be required to use only the budgets
established for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS. Conformity to the annual PM10
budgets in such a case would no longer
be required.15
• PM10 areas that have adequate or
approved SIP budgets for only the
annual PM10 NAAQS would be required
to use them for PM10 conformity
determinations until PM10 SIP budgets
for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS are found
adequate or approved. For areas that use
annual PM10 budgets, a regional
emissions analysis would be done based
on an analysis of annual, rather than 24hour, emissions.
EPA is not proposing to change any
other existing conformity requirements
for PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. For example, the
existing requirement for project-level
conformity determinations in PM10
areas would also continue to apply,
including hot-spot analyses in some
cases (see §§ 93.116(a) and 93.123(b)).
Although project-level conformity
requirements and any required hot-spot
analysis would apply only with respect
to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, this
requires no revisions to the current
conformity rule.
D. Rationale
Today’s proposed rule changes for
PM10 conformity tests result from the
revocation of the annual PM10 NAAQS.
Where annual PM10 budgets are the only
PM10 budgets, EPA believes it is
necessary to use such budgets to
demonstrate conformity for the 24-hour
15 Note that it would not be necessary to remove
budgets established for the annual PM10 NAAQS
from a SIP for conformity purposes; they do not
apply if an area has budgets for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS. However, states can choose to revise such
SIPs to remove any annual PM10 budgets, since this
standard has been revoked and remaining 24-hour
PM10 budgets would ensure that anti-backsliding
SIP requirements are met.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
PM10 NAAQS to meet Clean Air Act
requirements. As discussed above in
Section VI.B.2., a 2006 decision by the
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
clarified this point. In this decision, the
court stated, ‘‘A current SIP, even one
tied to outdated NAAQS, remains in
force until replaced by another but laterapproved SIP. The Clean Air Act
provides that the current SIPs are legally
sufficient until they are replaced by new
SIPs.’’ (Environmental Defense v. EPA,
467 F.3d 1329, 1335 (DC Cir. 2006)).
Refer to Section VI.B.2. for further
information about the decision. EPA
believes that today’s proposal is
consistent with this decision.
Consequently, EPA believes that
annual PM10 budgets must be used to
demonstrate conformity for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS when adequate or
approved 24-hour PM10 budgets are not
yet established. In areas with PM10
budgets that address only the annual
PM10 NAAQS, these budgets have been
the measure of PM10 conformity thus
far, and have been consistent with these
areas’ PM10 air quality progress to date.
Therefore, using annual PM10 budgets
where no other PM10 SIP budgets are
available ensures that air quality
progress to date is maintained, air
quality will not be worsened and
attainment and any interim milestones
for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS will not
be delayed because of emissions
increases. Once 24-hour PM10 budgets
are found adequate or approved, the
budget test solely for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS provides the best means to
determine whether transportation plans,
TIPs, or projects meet Clean Air Act
conformity requirements.
Most PM10 areas already have
adequate or approved budgets for only
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. However,
there are a limited number of PM10 areas
that have SIP budgets only for the
annual PM10 NAAQS. EPA believes that
the statute as interpreted by the court
requires such areas to continue to use
these adequate or approved annual PM10
SIP budgets, rather than use one of the
interim emissions tests in 40 CFR
93.119(d) which could be less
environmentally protective tests than
SIP budgets.
While EPA addressed how the
revocation affected PM10 transportation
conformity requirements in its
September 2008 guidance, updating the
regulation clarifies the requirements and
simplifies implementation. This
proposed rule also saves resources in
some areas with adequate or approved
SIP budgets for both the 24-hour and
annual PM10 NAAQS because these
areas are no longer required to use
budgets for the annual PM10 NAAQS. As
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
mentioned above, today’s minor
revision to the conformity rule is
consistent with what is already required
in the field for PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
IX. Response to the December 2007 HotSpot Court Decision
A. Background
EPA promulgated a final rule on
March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12468) that
revised the previous PM10 conformity
hot-spot analysis requirements and
applied these revised requirements to
PM2.5.16 A hot-spot analysis is defined
in 40 CFR 93.101 as an estimation of
likely future localized pollutant
concentrations and a comparison of
those concentrations to relevant
NAAQS. A hot-spot analysis assesses
the air quality impacts of an individual
transportation project on a scale smaller
than a regional emissions analysis for an
entire nonattainment or maintenance
area.
Section 93.116(a) of the current
conformity rule requires that projects in
PM2.5, PM10, and CO nonattainment and
maintenance areas ‘‘must not cause or
contribute to any new localized CO,
PM10, and/or PM2.5 violations or
increase the frequency or severity of any
existing CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5
violations* * *.’’ This requirement is
satisfied for applicable projects 17 ‘‘if it
is demonstrated that during the time
frame of the transportation plan no new
local violations will be created and the
severity or number of existing violations
will not be increased as a result of the
project.’’ Sections 93.105(c)(1)(i) and
93.123 contain the consultation and
methodology requirements for
conducting hot-spot analyses.
A hot-spot analysis, when required, is
only one part of a project-level
conformity determination. In order to
meet all Clean Air Act requirements, an
individual project must also be included
in a conforming transportation plan and
TIP (and regional emissions analysis for
the entire nonattainment or
maintenance area) and meet any other
applicable requirements.
Environmental petitioners challenged
the March 2006 final rule, and raised
several issues related to it. First,
16 The March 10, 2006 rule constituted final
action on EPA’s original proposal from November
5, 2003 (68 FR 62690, 62712) and a supplemental
proposal from December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72140,
72144–45, and 72149–50).
17 Section 93.123(b) contains the types of projects
for which a hot-spot analysis applies in PM2.5 and
PM10 areas. For additional discussion, please refer
to ‘‘V. Projects of Air Quality Concern and General
Requirements for PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-spot
Analyses’’ in the preamble of the March 10, 2006
final rule at 71 FR 12490–12498.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23037
petitioners alleged that the final rule did
not ensure that transportation projects
complied with Clean Air Act section
176(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B)(iii). Second,
petitioners alleged that EPA had
previously approved its MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile source emissions model for
use in quantitative PM2.5 and PM10 hotspot analyses, and withdrew such
approval in the March 2006 final rule
without providing adequate notice and
opportunity for public comment.18
On December 11, 2007, the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals issued its decision,
and upheld EPA’s March 2006 final rule
and remanded one issue for
clarification. Environmental Defense v.
EPA, 509 F.3d. 553 (DC Cir. 2007). The
court agreed with EPA’s position that
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(A) does
not require that an individual
transportation project reduce emissions,
but only that such a project not worsen
air quality compared to what would
have otherwise occurred if the project
was not implemented. The court held
that, assuming section 176(c)(1)(A)
applies in the local area surrounding an
individual project, EPA’s position that
this provision is met if a transportation
project conforms to the emissions
estimates and control requirements of
the SIP was a reasonable one. The court
also rejected petitioners’ arguments
regarding MOBILE6.2 and found that
EPA had in fact provided adequate
notice and comment on its decision not
to require quantitative PM hot-spot
analyses using MOBILE6.2 due to the
model’s technical limitations at the
project-level (71 FR 12498–12502).
However, the court remanded to EPA
for further explanation of the Agency’s
interpretation of Clean Air Act section
176(c)(1)(B)(iii). The court instructed
EPA on remand to interpret how this
provision of the Act is met within the
local area affected by an individual
project, or explain why this statutory
provision does not apply within such an
area. Environmental Defense v. EPA,
509 F.3d. 553 (DC Cir. 2007). Today’s
proposal is intended to respond to this
part of the court’s decision.
B. Proposal
EPA is proposing to make two minor
changes to section 93.116(a) of the
conformity rule to address the court’s
remand. First, EPA is explicitly stating
in this provision that federally funded
or approved highway and transit
projects in PM2.5 and PM10
18 EPA and petitioners settled a third issue that
was not raised to the court. The settlement was
finalized on June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34460), and
described a stakeholder process that EPA will use
to develop its future PM2.5 and PM10 quantitative
hot-spot modeling guidance.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23038
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment and maintenance areas
must meet the requirements of Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) within the
local area affected by the project. EPA
is also proposing to make explicit in
§ 93.116 the existing requirement that
projects must be included in a regional
emissions analysis under 40 CFR 93.118
or 93.119. Consistent with the Court’s
decision, EPA is not proposing
additional requirements, such as
requiring that an individual project
reduce emissions in the local project
area.
EPA is not proposing any substantive
changes to existing requirements for
project-level conformity determinations.
Under today’s proposal, project-level
conformity determinations, including
any hot-spot analyses, would continue
to be performed in the same manner as
current practice. Projects would
continue to be required to be a part of
a regional emissions analysis that
supports a conforming transportation
plan and TIP. Hot-spot analyses would
need to demonstrate that during the
time frame of the transportation plan no
new local violations would be created
and the severity or number of existing
violations would not be increased as a
result of a new project. By making these
demonstrations, it can be assured that
the project would not delay timely
attainment or any required interim
reductions or milestones, as described
further below. In addition, project
sponsors would continue to document
the hot-spot analysis as part of the
project-level conformity determination,
and the public would continue to be
able to comment on any aspects of the
conformity determination through
existing public involvement
requirements.
EPA notes that today’s proposal
would also address new projects in CO
nonattainment and maintenance areas,
since the hot-spot analysis requirements
in section 93.116(a) also apply to such
areas. Although the March 2006 final
rule and the December 2007 court case
did not involve CO hot-spot
requirements, EPA believes it is
appropriate to clarify that Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) must also be met
for projects in CO nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
Solely for purposes of ensuring that
state and local implementers and the
public understand today’s proposed
change within the context of existing
conformity requirements, EPA is also
including section 93.116(a) regulatory
text in its entirety in today’s proposal.
However, EPA is not proposing to
amend the existing regulatory text in 40
CFR 93.116(a) that is not addressed by
the issues discussed in today’s proposal.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
As described above, EPA is proposing
only to add regulatory text to section
93.116(a) to clarify that federally funded
or approved highway and transit
projects in PM2.5, PM10, and CO
nonattainment and maintenance areas
must meet the requirements of Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) within the
local area affected by the project. EPA
is not reopening for public comment
any other aspects of the current section
93.116(a), or any other provisions in the
conformity rule regarding project-level
conformity determinations (e.g., what
projects require hot-spot analyses or
methodology requirements, as described
in 40 CFR 93.123).
C. Rationale
1. General
Project-level conformity
determinations must demonstrate that
all of the requirements in Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(1)(B) are met. Section
176(c)(1)(B) defines conformity to a SIP
to mean ‘‘that such activities will not (i)
cause or contribute to any new violation
of any NAAQS in any area; (ii) increase
the frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any NAAQS in any area; or
(iii) delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or any required interim
emission reductions or other milestones
in any area.’’
In Environmental Defense, the court
held that EPA did not explain how it
interpreted the language of Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) in
conjunction with related language in
sections 176(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii).
Although section 93.116(a) of the
existing conformity rule includes the
statutory text for section 176(c)(1)(B)(i)
and (ii), it does not explicitly include
the statutory language in section
176(c)(1)(B)(iii). The court stated that, if
‘‘any area’’ in the first two provisions
refers to a ‘‘local area,’’ then EPA must
either interpret the term ‘‘any area’’ in
section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) to also mean
‘‘local area,’’ or explain why a different
interpretation is reasonable. 509 F.3d at
560–61. EPA agrees with the court that
it is reasonable to conclude that all of
section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements must
be met in the local project area.
EPA believes that its existing
conformity hot-spot regulations, as well
as other conformity requirements,
already require that individual projects
comply with section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) in
the local project area. EPA has always
intended the term ‘‘any area’’ in all
three statutory provisions of section
176(c)(1)(B) to include the local area
affected by the emissions produced by
a new project. For example, as EPA
stated in the March 2006 final hot-spot
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rule (71 FR 12483), ‘‘a regional
emissions analysis for an area’s entire
planned transportation system is not
sufficient to ensure that individual
projects meet the requirements of
section 176(c)(1)(B) where projects
could have a localized air quality
impact.’’
To implement section 176(c)(1)(B)
requirements in PM2.5, PM10, and CO
nonattainment and maintenance areas
(40 CFR 93.109(b)), EPA’s current
conformity rule requires project-level
conformity determinations to address
the regional and local emissions impacts
from new projects. Section 93.115(a)
requires that an individual project must
be consistent with the emissions
projections and control measures in the
SIP, either by inclusion in a conforming
transportation plan and TIP or through
a separate demonstration (and regional
emissions analysis developed under 40
CFR 93.118 or 93.119). In addition,
section 93.116(a) requires that some
project-level conformity determinations
include a hot-spot analysis that
demonstrates emissions from a single
project do not negatively impact air
quality within the area substantially
affected by the project.19 Through
meeting all of these requirements, it can
be assured that a project does not cause
or contribute to a new or worsened air
quality violation, delay timely
attainment, or delay required interim
emission reductions or other milestones.
However, in light of the court’s
request for further explanation, EPA is
clarifying in this proposal that it
interprets the term ‘‘any area’’ in Clean
Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B) to mean any
portion of a nonattainment or
maintenance area, including the local
area affected by a transportation project.
The proposed clarifications and the
existing conformity requirements ensure
that transportation planners address the
requirement that there be no delay in
timely attainment or required interim
reductions or other milestones in the
local project area.
EPA notes that Clean Air Act section
176(c)(1)(B)(iii) does not require an
individual project to reduce emissions
in the local project area for it to be
consistent with the requirement not to
delay timely attainment or required
interim reductions or milestones, as
EPA explained in the preamble to its
March 2006 hot-spot regulations (71 FR
12482), with which the Court agreed.
19 Hot-spot analyses must be based on the latest
data and models under 40 CFR 93.109(b), 93.111,
and 93.123, and therefore any growth in other
emissions sources or the impact of new or existing
emissions controls (including those in any required
SIP) would always be considered in a hot-spot
analysis prior to approving a project.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
See also Environmental Defense v. EPA,
467 F.3d 1329, 1337 (DC Cir. 2006)
(‘‘EPA argues, and we agree, that
conformity to a SIP can be demonstrated
by using the build/no-build test, even if
individual transportation plans do not
actively reduce emissions’’). Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) does not
require a new project to mitigate new or
worsened air quality violations that it
does not cause. This statutory provision
also does not require a new project to
contribute new interim reductions
beyond those that are already required
in the SIP.
The only case where Congress
specifically required individual projects
to provide emission reductions in hotspot analyses is for projects in certain
CO nonattainment areas. Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(3)(B)(ii) requires
individual projects in CO nonattainment
areas to ‘‘eliminate or reduce the
severity and number of violations of the
carbon monoxide NAAQS in areas
substantially affected by the project.’’ 20
Since Congress did not establish such a
requirement for any project in PM2.5 and
PM10 areas under section
176(c)(3)(B)(ii), and for the reasons
described in today’s proposal, EPA does
not interpret such a requirement to
apply to projects in PM2.5 or PM10 areas
under section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii).
2. Requirement for No Delay in Timely
Attainment of the NAAQS
Today’s proposal would clarify that a
project would meet Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) requirements
not to delay timely attainment as long
as no new or worsened violations are
predicted to occur, which is already
required under the existing hot-spot
requirements. While overall emissions
can increase in a local area above those
expected without a new project’s
implementation, a project will not delay
timely attainment if air quality
concentrations meet federal air quality
NAAQS or air quality is improved from
what would have occurred without the
new project’s implementation.
For example, suppose a hot-spot
analysis is performed for a new highway
project that is predicted to significantly
increase the number of diesel trucks
from what is expected in the local area
without the project. A year is chosen in
this example to analyze when peak
emissions from the project are expected
and future air quality is most likely to
be impacted due to the cumulative
impacts of the project and background
emissions in the project area. Under
both the current conformity rule and the
20 This requirement is included in section
93.116(b) of the existing conformity rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
proposed clarification, the project
would meet section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii)
requirements not to delay timely
attainment in the local project area as
long as the project’s new emissions do
not create new violations or worsen
existing violations in the local project
area. Such a demonstration would
examine the total impact of the project’s
new emissions in the context of the
future transportation system, any
expected growth in other emissions
sources, and any existing or new control
measures that are expected to impact
the local project area. If the hot-spot
analysis demonstrated that the proposed
project would improve or not impact air
quality, then timely attainment would
also not be delayed from what would
have occurred without the project. In
contrast, if such a project increased
emissions enough to cause a new
violation or worsen an existing violation
in the local project area, then the project
would delay timely attainment, since
worsening air quality above the NAAQS
would impede the ability to attain in the
local project area. In such a case, the
project could not be found to conform
until the new or worsened future
violation was mitigated.
3. Requirement for No Delay in Timely
Attainment of Any Required Interim
Reductions or Milestones
Today’s proposal also ensures that a
project would meet Clean Air Act
section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) requirements for
no delay in the timely attainment of any
required interim reductions or other
milestones. EPA interprets ‘‘any
required interim emission reductions or
other milestones’’ to refer to Clean Air
Act requirements associated with
reductions and milestones addressed by
reasonable further progress SIPs, rather
than other reductions required for other
purposes. However, EPA believes there
is added value in referencing in section
93.116(a) the existing conformity
requirement that a project be consistent
with the budgets and control measures
in any applicable SIP. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to clarify that this
requirement is satisfied in the local
project area if a project is consistent
with the motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) and control measures in the
applicable SIP or interim emission
test(s) (in the absence of a SIP budget).
Although such a demonstration is
already required under the current rule,
EPA’s proposed reference to the
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 and
93.119 would clarify that a project’s
emissions—when combined with all
other emissions from all other existing
and other proposed transportation
projects—are consistent with any
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23039
applicable required interim reductions
and milestones.
Today’s proposal also supports the
implementation of control measures that
are relied upon in reasonable further
progress demonstrations and could
impact air quality in the local project
area. Under the existing conformity rule,
control measures that are relied upon
for reasonable further progress SIPs
must have sufficient state and local
commitments to be included in a
regional emissions analysis or a hot-spot
analysis. If the implementation of a
control measure is not assured, then
such reductions cannot be included in
the regional emissions analysis for the
entire nonattainment or maintenance
area (40 CFR 93.122(a)) or within the
local project area considered in a hotspot analysis (40 CFR 93.123(c)(3) and
(4)). EPA believes that these existing
requirements also ensure that ‘‘any
required interim emissions reductions
or other milestones’’ are not delayed
within a local project area as a result of
a single project’s emissions.
For example, a project may not meet
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii)
requirements if SIP control measures
were not being implemented as
expected and as a result, a project’s
emissions (when combined with
expected future emissions without the
SIP control measures) caused a new
violation or worsened an existing
violation in the local project area. In
such a case, additional control measures
as part of the conformity determination
may be required in order to offset any
emissions increases from a project.
Today’s proposal would also result in
all Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii)
requirements being met when air quality
improves as a result of the project, e.g.,
an existing air quality violation that
would have occurred without the
project is estimated to be reduced or
eliminated if the new project were
implemented. EPA believes that all of
section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements would
be met in the local project area in such
a case since the Act requires that
individual projects do not worsen air
quality or affect an area’s ability to
attain or achieve interim requirements.
Certainly, if air quality improves in the
local project area with the
implementation of a new project, EPA
believes that timely attainment and
required reasonable further progress
interim requirements are not delayed. In
fact, the opposite would be true in such
a case, since future air quality would be
improved and attainment possibly
expedited from what would have
occurred without the project’s
implementation.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23040
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
4. Summary
In summary, today’s proposed
clarifications and the existing
conformity rule would ensure that
transportation projects meet Clean Air
Act section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii)
requirements. As long as a
transportation project does not worsen
air quality concentrations within the
local project area, and is consistent with
the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
and control measures in the applicable
SIP or interim emissions test(s) (in the
absence of budgets), it would not delay
timely attainment, or interfere with
required interim reductions and other
milestones, even if it does not reduce
emissions levels within a project’s
location. For these reasons, EPA is not
proposing to add any new requirements
to the existing conformity rule. Instead,
EPA is proposing simply to clarify the
rule in § 93.116(a) to address the
Environmental Defense court’s remand
of the March 2006 hot-spot regulation
for further explanation of the
applicability of Clean Air Act section
176(c)(1)(B)(iii).
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
it raises novel legal and policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. The
information collection requirements of
EPA’s existing transportation
conformity regulations and the
proposed revisions in today’s action are
already covered by EPA information
collection request (ICR) entitled,
‘‘Transportation Conformity
Determinations for Federally Funded
and Approved Transportation Plans,
Programs and Projects.’’ The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations at 40 CFR part 93
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0561. The OMB control numbers
for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an Agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of rules
subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-forprofit organizations and small
government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation directly affects
federal agencies and metropolitan
planning organizations that, by
definition, are designated under federal
transportation laws only for
metropolitan areas with a population of
at least 50,000. These organizations do
not constitute small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
The purpose of this proposal is to
amend the conformity rule to clarify
how certain highway and transit
projects meet statutory conformity
requirements for particulate matter (PM)
in response to a December 2007 court
ruling, and to update the regulation to
accommodate revisions to the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposal merely
implements already established law that
imposes conformity requirements and
does not itself impose requirements that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more in any year. Thus,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
today’s proposal is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
rule will not significantly or uniquely
impact small governments because it
directly affects federal agencies and
metropolitan planning organizations
that, by definition, are designated under
federal transportation laws only for
metropolitan areas with a population of
at least 50,000.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on states, on
the relationship between the national
government and states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The Clean Air
Act requires conformity to apply in
certain nonattainment and maintenance
areas as a matter of law, and this
proposed action merely proposes to
establish and revise procedures for
transportation planning entities in
subject areas to follow in meeting their
existing statutory obligations. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communication between EPA
and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from state and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). The Clean Air Act requires
transportation conformity to apply in
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
any area that is designated
nonattainment or maintenance by EPA.
This proposal would amend the
conformity rule to clarify how certain
highway and transit projects meet
statutory conformity requirements for
particulate matter in response to a
December 2007 court ruling, and to
update the conformity rule to
accommodate revisions to the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because today’s
proposed amendments to the conformity
rule do not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997,) applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. It
does not create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency
regarding energy. Further, this rule is
not likely to have any adverse energy
effects because it does not raise novel
legal or policy issues adversely affecting
the supply, distribution or use of energy
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and
13211.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposal does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
This proposal would simply amend the
conformity rule to clarify how certain
highway and transit projects meet
statutory requirements for particulate
matter in response to a December 2007
court ruling, and updates the conformity
rule to accommodate revisions to the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS.
K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section
307(d)(1)(U), the Administrator
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23041
determines that this section is subject to
the provisions of section 307(d). Section
307(d)(1)(U) provides that the
provisions of section 307(d) apply to
‘‘such other actions as the Administrator
may determine.’’
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 93
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon
monoxide, Clean Air Act,
Environmental protection, Highways
and roads, Intergovernmental relations,
Mass transportation, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter,
Transportation, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: May 6, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 93 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 93—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 93
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
2. Section 93.101 is amended by
adding new definitions for ‘‘24-hour
PM10 NAAQS’’, ‘‘1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’,
‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’, and ‘‘Annual
PM10 NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
§ 93.101
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
24-hour PM10 NAAQS means the 24hour PM10 national ambient air quality
standard codified at 40 CFR 50.6.
*
*
*
*
*
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS means the PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards
codified at 40 CFR 50.7.
*
*
*
*
*
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS means the 24hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard codified at 40 CFR 50.13.
*
*
*
*
*
Annual PM10 NAAQS means the
annual PM10 national ambient air
quality standard that EPA revoked on
December 18, 2006.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 93.105
[Amended]
3. Section 93.105 is amended in
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) by removing the
citation ‘‘§ 93.109(l)(2)(iii)’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘§ 93.109(n)(2)(iii)’’.
4. Section 93.109 is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (b):
i. By removing the citation ‘‘(c)
through (i)’’ and adding in its place the
citation ‘‘(c) through (k)’’;
ii. By removing the reference ‘‘(j)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘(l)’’;
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
23042
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
iii. By removing the reference ‘‘(k)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘(m)’’;
iv. By removing the reference ‘‘(l)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘(n)’’;
b. By revising paragraph (g)(2)
introductory text;
c. By redesignating paragraph (g)(3) as
(g)(4);
d. By adding new paragraph (g)(3);
e. By revising the heading of
paragraph (i);
f. By adding the words ‘‘such 1997’’
before the words ‘‘PM2.5 nonattainment
and maintenance areas’’ in paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(2) introductory text, and (i)(3);
g. By redesignating paragraphs (j), (k),
and (l) as (l), (m), and (n), respectively;
h. In newly designated paragraph
(n)(2) introductory text by removing the
citation ‘‘(c) through (k)’’ and adding in
its place the citation ‘‘(c) through (m)’’;
i. In newly designated paragraph
(n)(2)(iii):
i. By removing the citation
‘‘(l)(2)(ii)’’ and adding in its
place the citation ‘‘(n)(2)(ii)’’;
ii. By removing the citation
‘‘(l)(2)(ii)(C)’’ and adding
in its place the citation
‘‘(n)(2)(ii)(C)’’;
j. By adding new paragraphs (j) and
(k).
§ 93.109 Criteria and procedures for
determining conformity of transportation
plans, programs, and projects: General.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) In PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas where a budget is
submitted for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
the budget test must be satisfied as
required by § 93.118 for conformity
determinations made on or after:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Prior to paragraph (g)(2) of this
section applying, the budget test must
be satisfied as required by § 93.118
using the approved or adequate motor
vehicle emissions budget established for
the revoked annual PM10 NAAQS, if
such a budget exists.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. * * *
(j) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment
and maintenance areas without 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS motor vehicle emissions
budgets for any portion of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS area. In addition to the
criteria listed in Table 1 in paragraph (b)
of this section that are required to be
satisfied at all times, in such 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas
conformity determinations must include
a demonstration that the budget and/or
interim emissions tests are satisfied as
described in the following:
(1) FHWA/FTA projects in such PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
must satisfy the appropriate hot-spot
test required by § 93.116(a).
(2) In such PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas the budget test must
be satisfied as required by § 93.118 for
conformity determinations made on or
after:
(i) The effective date of EPA’s finding
that a motor vehicle emissions budget in
a submitted control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes;
(ii) The publication date of EPA’s
approval of such a budget in the Federal
Register; or
(iii) The effective date of EPA’s
approval of such a budget in the Federal
Register, if such approval is completed
through direct final rulemaking.
(3) In such PM2.5 nonattainment areas
the interim emissions tests must be
satisfied as required by § 93.119 for
conformity determinations made if there
is no approved motor vehicle emissions
budget from an applicable
implementation plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and no adequate motor vehicle
emissions budget from a submitted
control strategy implementation plan
revision or maintenance plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
(k) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment
and maintenance areas with motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS that cover all or a portion
of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area.
In addition to the criteria listed in Table
1 in paragraph (b) of this section that are
required to be satisfied at all times, in
such 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas conformity
determinations must include a
demonstration that the budget and/or
interim emissions tests are satisfied as
described in the following:
(1) FHWA/FTA projects in such PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas
must satisfy the appropriate hot-spot
test required by § 93.116(a).
(2) In such PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas the budget test must
be satisfied as required by § 93.118 for
conformity determinations made on or
after:
(i) The effective date of EPA’s finding
that a motor vehicle emissions budget in
a submitted control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes;
(ii) The publication date of EPA’s
approval of such a budget in the Federal
Register; or
(iii) The effective date of EPA’s
approval of such a budget in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Register, if such approval is completed
through direct final rulemaking.
(3) Prior to paragraph (k)(2) of this
section applying, the following test(s)
must be satisfied:
(i) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area covers the same geographic area as
the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance area(s), the budget test as
required by § 93.118 using the approved
or adequate motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the 1997 PM2.5 applicable
implementation plan or implementation
plan submission;
(ii) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area covers a smaller geographic area
within the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance area(s), the budget test as
required by § 93.118 for either:
(A) The 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area using corresponding portion(s) of
the approved or adequate motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5
applicable implementation plan or
implementation plan submission where
such portion(s) can reasonably be
identified through the interagency
consultation process required by
§ 93.105; or
(B) The 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment
area using the approved or adequate
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
1997 PM2.5 applicable implementation
plan or implementation plan
submission. If additional emissions
reductions are necessary to meet the
budget test for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in such cases, these emissions
reductions must come from within the
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area;
(iii) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area covers a larger geographic area and
encompasses the entire 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area(s):
(A) The budget test as required by
§ 93.118 for the portion of the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment area covered by the
approved or adequate motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5
applicable implementation plan or
implementation plan submission; and
the interim emissions tests as required
by § 93.119 for either: The portion of the
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area not
covered by the approved or adequate
budgets in the 1997 PM2.5
implementation plan, the entire 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment area, or the entire
portion of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area within an individual state, in the
case where separate 1997 PM2.5 SIP
budgets are established for each state of
a multi-state 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment
or maintenance area; or
(B) The budget test as required by
§ 93.118 for the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area using the approved
or adequate motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the applicable 1997 PM2.5
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
implementation plan or implementation
plan submission.
(iv) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area partially covers a 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area(s):
(A) The budget test as required by
§ 93.118 for the portion of the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment area covered by the
corresponding portion of the approved
or adequate motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the 1997 PM2.5 applicable
implementation plan or implementation
plan submission where they can be
reasonably identified through the
interagency consultation process
required by § 93.105; and
(B) The interim emissions tests as
required by § 93.119, when applicable,
for either: The portion of the 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area not covered by the
approved or adequate budgets in the
1997 PM2.5 implementation plan, the
entire 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area, or
the entire portion of the 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area within an
individual state, in the case where
separate 1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets are
established for each state in a multistate 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance area.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 93.116 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 93.116 Criteria and procedures:
Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 violations
(hot-spots).
(a) This paragraph applies at all times.
The FHWA/FTA project must not cause
or contribute to any new localized CO,
PM10, and/or PM2.5 violations, increase
the frequency or severity of any existing
CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5 violations, or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:44 May 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
delay timely attainment of any standard
or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestones in CO,
PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. This criterion is
satisfied without a hot-spot analysis in
PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas for FHWA/FTA
projects that are not identified in
§ 93.123(b)(1). This criterion is satisfied
for all other FHWA/FTA projects in CO,
PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas if it is demonstrated
that during the time frame of the
transportation plan no new local
violations will be created and the
severity or number of existing violations
will not be increased as a result of the
project, and the project has been
included in a regional emissions
analysis that meets applicable §§ 93.118
and/or 93.119 requirements. The
demonstration must be performed
according to the consultation
requirements of § 93.105(c)(1)(i) and the
methodology requirements of § 93.123.
§ 93.118
[Amended]
6. Section 93.118 is amended in
paragraph (a) by removing the citation
‘‘§ 93.109(c) through (l)’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ 93.109(c) through (n)’’.
7. Section 93.119 is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (a), by removing the
citation ‘‘§ 93.109(c) through (l)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 93.109(c) through
(n)’’; and
b. By revising paragraph (e)(2).
§ 93.119 Criteria and procedures: Interim
emissions in areas without motor vehicle
emissions budgets.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00021
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
23043
(e) * * *
Option 1 for paragraph (e)(2):
(2) The emissions predicted in the
‘‘Action’’ scenario are not greater than:
(A) 2002 emissions, in areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as described in
§ 93.109(i); or
(B) 2008 emissions, in areas
designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as described in § 93.109(j)
and (k).
Option 2 for paragraph (e)(2):
(2) The emissions predicted in the
‘‘Action’’ scenario are not greater than:
(A) 2002 emissions, in areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS; or
(B) Emissions in the most recent year
for which EPA’s Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (40 CFR Part
51, Subpart A) requires submission of
on-road mobile source emissions
inventories, as of the effective date of
nonattainment designations for any
PM2.5 NAAQS other than the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 93.121
[Amended]
8. Section 93.121 is amended:
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text
by removing the citation ‘‘§ 93.109(l)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘§ 93.109(n)’’;
b. In paragraph (c) introductory text
by removing the citation ‘‘§ 93.109(j)
and (k)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 93.109(l) and (m)’’.
[FR Doc. E9–11184 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\15MYP2.SGM
15MYP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23024-23043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11184]
[[Page 23023]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 93
Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10
Amendments; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 23024]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 93
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540; FRL-8904-1]
RIN 2060-AP29
Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and
PM10 Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the transportation conformity
rule that primarily affect conformity's implementation in
PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas. EPA is proposing to update the transportation conformity
regulation in light of the October 17, 2006 final rule that
strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard and
revoked the annual PM10 standard. In addition, EPA is
proposing to clarify the regulations concerning hot-spot analyses to
address a remand from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (Environmental Defense v. EPA, 509 F.3d 553 (DC Cir. 2007)).
This portion of the proposal applies to PM2.5 and
PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas as well as carbon
monoxide nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The Clean Air Act requires federally supported transportation
plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects to be
consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of the state air quality
implementation plan. DOT is EPA's federal partner in implementing the
transportation conformity regulation. EPA has consulted with DOT, and
they concur with this proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received on or before
June 15, 2009, unless a public hearing is requested by May 26, 2009. If
a public hearing is requested by a commenter, it will be held June 4,
2009 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan. If a hearing is requested, written comments
must be received by June 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0540, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. Please include a total of
two copies.
Hand Delivery: Air Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: EPA West Building, EPA Docket Center (Room 3334),
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. Please include two copies. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0540. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, on June 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Berry, State Measures and
Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105, e-mail address: berry.laura@epa.gov, telephone number: (734)
214-4858, fax number: (734) 214-4052; or Patty Klavon, State Measures
and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105, e-mail address: klavon.patty@epa.gov, telephone number: (734)
214-4476, fax number: (734) 214-4052.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. General Information
II. Background on the Transportation Conformity Rule
III. General Overview of Transportation Conformity for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
IV. Baseline Year for Certain 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas
V. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas That Do Not Have Adequate or Approved SIP Budgets for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
VI. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006 PM2.5 Areas That
Have 1997 PM2.5 SIP Budgets
VII. Other Conformity Requirements for 2006 PM2.5 Areas
VIII. Transportation Conformity in PM10 Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas and the Revocation of the Annual PM10
NAAQS
IX. Response to the December 2007 Hot-Spot Court Decision
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially regulated by the conformity rule are those
that adopt,
[[Page 23025]]
approve, or fund transportation plans, programs, or projects under
title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Regulated categories and entities
affected by today's action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Local transportation and air
government............................. quality agencies, including
metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs).
State State transportation and air
government............................. quality agencies.
Federal Department of Transportation
government............................. (Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposal. This table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware
that potentially could be regulated by the transportation conformity
rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your organization is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability requirements in
40 CFR 93.102. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket
materials.
C. How Do I Get Copies of This Proposed Rule and Other Documents?
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. You can get a paper copy of this
Federal Register document, as well as the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action at the official public docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for its location.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through EPA's Transportation Conformity Web site at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm. You may also access this
document electronically under the Federal Register listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the official public docket is available
through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit
or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of
the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the electronic
public docket. Information claimed as CBI and other information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute is not available for public
viewing in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in the electronic public docket
but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official
public docket.
To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be
made available in the electronic public docket. When a document is
selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify
whether the document is available for viewing in the electronic public
docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified in the
ADDRESSES section. EPA intends to provide electronic access in the
future to all of the publicly available docket materials through the
electronic public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to the electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in the electronic public docket. Where practical,
physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be
placed in the electronic public docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
For additional information about the electronic public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
II. Background on the Transportation Conformity Rule
A. What Is Transportation Conformity?
Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act section
176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and federally supported
highway and transit project activities are consistent with (``conform
to'') the purpose of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).
Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). Transportation conformity applies to
areas that are designated nonattainment, and those areas redesignated
to attainment after 1990 (``maintenance areas'') for transportation-
related criteria
[[Page 23026]]
pollutants: Carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and particulate matter (PM2.5, and
PM10).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) defines PM2.5 and
PM10 as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's transportation conformity rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93)
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether
transportation activities conform to the SIP. EPA first promulgated the
transportation conformity rule on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and
subsequently published several other amendments. DOT is EPA's federal
partner in implementing the transportation conformity regulation. EPA
has consulted with DOT, which concurs with this proposed rule.
A few recent amendments to the transportation conformity rule are
useful background for today's proposal. In a final rule EPA published
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004), EPA provided conformity procedures for
state and local agencies under the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), among
other things. EPA's nonattainment area designations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS were effective in June 2004 and April
2005 respectively. The July 2004 update provided guidance and rules for
implementing conformity for these NAAQS. In addition, on May 6, 2005,
EPA promulgated a final rule entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the New PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: PM2.5 Precursors'' (70 FR 24280). This final rule
specified transportation-related PM2.5 precursors and when
they must be considered in transportation conformity determinations in
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.
On March 10, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule (71 FR 12468)
entitled, ``PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in
Project-Level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the New
PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.'' This rule established the criteria and procedures
for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for
local air quality impacts--or ``hot-spots''--in PM2.5 and
PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. See Section IX. of
today's preamble for more information regarding the March 2006 rule;
see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm for further information about any of EPA's transportation
conformity rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At this Web site, click on ``Regulations'' to find all of
EPA's proposed and final rules as well the current transportation
conformity regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why Are We Issuing This Proposed Rule?
Today's proposed rule is necessary because EPA promulgated a final
rule on October 17, 2006 that changed the PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS, as described further below. These revisions to
the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS necessitate an update to
the transportation conformity rule to provide guidance and rules for
implementing conformity for these NAAQS. Sections III. through VIII.
describe the proposed changes to the transportation conformity rule
that are a result of the October 2006 revisions to the PM2.5
and PM10 NAAQS.
Today's proposed rule is also necessary because of a court decision
regarding the March 2006 hot-spot rulemaking. Section IX. of this
preamble describes the issue, the court's decision, and EPA's proposed
response.
III. General Overview of Transportation Conformity for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Background on 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Development
EPA issued a final rule on October 17, 2006 that strengthened the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and revoked the annual PM10
NAAQS (71 FR 61144). In that final rule, EPA strengthened the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS from the 1997 level of 65 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (average of 98th percentile values for three
consecutive years) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, while the level of the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS remained unchanged at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (average
of three consecutive annual average values). This final rule was
effective on December 18, 2006. EPA selected levels for the final NAAQS
after completing an extensive review of thousands of scientific studies
on the impact of fine and coarse particles on public health and
welfare. For additional information about the October 17, 2006
rulemaking, the final rule and EPA outreach materials can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html.
The October 2006 rule establishing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
did not revoke the 1997 annual or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See
Section D. below for details on how this proposal would interact with
conformity requirements for those areas designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA signed the final rule designating areas for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 22, 2008. Conformity for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will apply one year after the effective date of
the nonattainment designations.\3\ The designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS are separate from and do not impact existing
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The effective date for these nonattainment designations will
be included in the Federal Register publication of the final
designations rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. When Does Conformity Apply for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS?
Transportation conformity for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'') does not apply until one year
after the effective date of nonattainment designations for this NAAQS.
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(6) and 40 CFR 93.102(d) provide a one-year
grace period from the effective date of designations before
transportation conformity applies in areas newly designated
nonattainment for a particular NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA began the process of notifying state and local agencies,
via the EPA regional offices, of the timing of conformity under the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in its April 16, 2007 memorandum
entitled, ``Transportation Conformity and the Revised 24-hour
PM2.5 Standard,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director,
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, EPA Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, to EPA Regional Air Directors,
Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion provides more details on the application
of the one-year grace period in specific types of newly designated
nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
metropolitan, donut and isolated rural areas. This information is
consistent with how conformity for new NAAQS has been implemented in
the past.
1. Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan areas are urbanized areas that have a population
greater than 50,000 and a designated metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation planning per 23 U.S.C. 134. The
one-year grace period means that, in general, within one year after the
effective date of the initial nonattainment designation for a given
pollutant and NAAQS, the area's MPO and DOT must make a conformity
determination with regard to that pollutant and NAAQS for the area's
transportation plan and TIP. The procedures for interagency
consultation process found in 40 CFR 93.105 or a state's approved
conformity SIP must be used in making conformity determinations for
transportation plans and TIPs. MPOs must continue to meet conformity
requirements for any other
[[Page 23027]]
applicable NAAQS, including the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, if the
area is designated nonattainment or maintenance for such NAAQS as well.
The one-year grace period for conformity also applies to project-
level conformity determinations (including hot-spot analyses in certain
cases) in newly designated 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
At the end of the one-year grace period for conformity, requirements
for project-level conformity determinations must be met for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before any new federal approvals for such
projects can occur. For non-exempt Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) projects, a conformity
determination is normally required before the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process is completed, since NEPA is typically the
first stage requiring approval in a federal project's development.
However, if the NEPA process was completed before conformity applies,
then areas that are newly designated as nonattainment may also be
required to demonstrate conformity for subsequent funding and approvals
for project phases (e.g., right-of-way acquisition, final design,
construction). Conformity would be needed for a subsequent project
phase if it occurs after the grace period has ended, and the project
has not yet been included in a conformity determination for the
relevant pollutant and NAAQS or met other applicable conformity
requirements.
Before the end of the one-year grace period, FHWA or FTA could
voluntarily choose to make a project-level conformity determination
that meets the conformity rule's requirements. The procedures for
interagency consultation found in 40 CFR 93.105 or a state's approved
conformity SIP must be used in making project-level conformity
determinations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As described
further below in D. of this section, areas that are designated
nonattainment for both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will need to address all of these NAAQS in
conformity determinations.
If, at the conclusion of the one-year grace period, the MPO and DOT
have not made a transportation plan and TIP conformity determination
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the area would be in a conformity
``lapse.'' During a conformity lapse, only certain projects can receive
additional federal funding or approvals to proceed (e.g., exempt
projects, project phases that were approved before the lapse). The
practical impact of a conformity lapse will vary on an area-by-area
basis. For additional information on projects that can proceed during a
conformity lapse, read the following guidance memoranda that address
the March 2, 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals decision that affected related
provisions of the conformity rule (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA,
167 F.3d 641 (DC Cir. 1999): DOT's January 2, 2002 guidance, published
in the Federal Register on February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5882); DOT's May 20,
2003 and FTA's April 9, 2003 supplemental guidance documents; and,
EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance memorandum. EPA's current conformity rule
reflects all of these guidance documents (69 FR 40005-40006).
2. Donut Areas
For the purposes of transportation conformity, a ``donut'' area is
the geographic area outside a metropolitan planning area boundary, but
inside a designated nonattainment or maintenance area boundary that
includes an MPO (40 CFR 93.101). The conformity requirements for donut
areas, including the application of the one-year conformity grace
period, are generally the same as those for metropolitan areas. Within
one year of the effective date of an area's initial nonattainment
designation for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the existing and
planned transportation network for the donut portion of the area (as
well as for the metropolitan portion of the area) must demonstrate
conformity, or conformity of the metropolitan transportation plan and
TIP will lapse as described above, and the entire nonattainment area
will be unable to obtain additional project funding and approvals for
the duration of the lapse.
The interagency consultation group for each newly designated
nonattainment area that includes a donut portion should determine how
best to consider the donut area transportation system and new donut
area projects in the MPO's regional emissions analyses and
transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations. For more
discussion on how conformity determinations should be made for donut
areas, see the preamble to the July 1, 2004 conformity rule (69 FR
40013).
In nonattainment and maintenance areas with a donut portion,
adjacent MPOs must meet conformity requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 and other applicable NAAQS, including requirements for
any 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for which the donut area is designated
nonattainment.
The one-year grace period for conformity also applies to project-
level conformity determinations in newly designated nonattainment areas
that include a donut portion, as described above for projects in
metropolitan areas.
3. Isolated Rural Areas
Isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas are areas that
do not contain or are not part of any metropolitan planning area as
designated by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 (40 CFR 93.101).
Isolated rural areas do not have metropolitan transportation plans or
TIPs required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 for any
portion of the area, and do not have projects that are part of the
emissions analysis of any MPO's transportation plan or TIP. Instead,
projects in such areas are included only in statewide transportation
improvement programs and statewide transportation plans, when
appropriate.
As in other newly designated nonattainment areas, the one-year
conformity grace period for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will begin
on the effective date of an isolated rural area's initial nonattainment
designation. However, because these areas do not have federally
required metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, they are not
subject to the frequency requirements for conformity determinations on
transportation plans and TIPs (40 CFR 93.104(b), (c), and (e)).
Instead, conformity determinations in isolated rural areas are required
only when a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project(s) needs funding or approval.
In fact, many isolated rural areas may not have a transportation
project in need of federal funding or approval for some time after the
one-year grace period has ended, and therefore, would not have to
demonstrate conformity before that time. Once the conformity grace
period has expired, a conformity determination would only be required
in such areas when a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project needs funding or
approval. For more information on the conformity requirements for
isolated rural areas, see 40 CFR 93.109(l); corresponding discussions
on how to demonstrate conformity in isolated rural areas can also be
found in the preambles to the November 24, 1993 transportation
conformity final rule (58 FR 62207) and the August 15, 1997 final rule
(62 FR 43785).
Please note that the current regulation's Sec. 93.109(l) would be
renamed as Sec. 93.109(n) under today's proposal, due to the other
proposed revisions and additions in this regulatory section. As we are
simply renumbering this provision, we are not seeking comment because
it is an administrative change. The basic
[[Page 23028]]
conformity requirements for isolated rural areas remain unchanged.
C. Proposed Definitions for PM2.5 NAAQS
EPA is proposing two new definitions to Sec. 93.101 of the
conformity rule to distinguish between the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These definitions would help
implement certain conformity requirements in areas that have been
designated nonattainment for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Some areas designated nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS also are designated nonattainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, some areas are designated for
only the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The proposed addition of these definitions is also similar to the
existing rule's definitions in 40 CFR 93.101 for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the proposed definitions are generally
consistent with how EPA is defining both kinds of PM2.5
areas for air quality planning purposes. EPA also notes that any
provision of the conformity rule that references only
``PM2.5'' and does not specify which NAAQS will continue to
apply to any area designated nonattainment for a PM2.5
NAAQS.
D. How Would This Proposal Interact With Existing Conformity
Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS?
Sections IV. through VI. of today's proposal describe proposed
conformity requirements for areas designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any changes to the
existing transportation conformity requirements for areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, since EPA's
nonattainment designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will not
affect existing 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment designations.
Nonattainment designations for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are different designations with separate SIP requirements,
different attainment dates, etc. As a result, Clean Air Act section
176(c)(5) requires conformity requirements to be met in both 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas, as
applicable.
Some areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS have never been subject to PM2.5 conformity
requirements. Under today's proposal and Clean Air Act section
176(c)(5), these areas would be required to meet only 2006
PM2.5 conformity requirements, and not conformity
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, because these areas
are not designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Other areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS have been designated also, in whole or in part, for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. These areas would continue to meet their
existing conformity requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as
well as any additional requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA notes that MPOs where both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS apply would have to determine conformity for both NAAQS. MPOs
subject to both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be able
to:
Use existing transportation models and data for regional
emissions analyses for both NAAQS, especially where nonattainment area
boundaries are the same;
Rely on analysis years for conformity determinations that
are the same for both NAAQS (e.g., analysis years for the last year of
the transportation plan, an intermediate year, etc.); and
Meet consultation and other conformity requirements
through the existing processes.
EPA is also proposing that before budgets for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS are available, conformity determinations for
some 2006 PM2.5 areas would be based on the same conformity
test (i.e., the budget test) that is being used for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in Section VI., EPA is proposing
that MPOs use any adequate or approved SIP budgets for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for conformity determinations that are made
prior to SIP budgets for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS being
available.
Today's proposal does not impact project-level conformity
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, EPA is
not proposing any changes to the PM2.5 hot-spot analysis
requirements, and EPA and FHWA's existing guidance for such analyses
continues to be available.\5\ For the purposes of PM2.5
conformity, a hot-spot analysis must address the PM2.5 NAAQS
for which the area has been designated nonattainment.\6\ See Section
VII. for further information regarding EPA's proposal for project-level
conformity requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-
spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas,'' EPA420-B-06-902, March 2006.
\6\ EPA notes that today's proposal does not address project
requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act or other
environmental programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA will work with PM2.5 nonattainment areas as needed
to ensure that state and local agencies can meet conformity
requirements for both the applicable 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in a timely and efficient manner. EPA requests comment on whether
additional information or training will be necessary for conformity
implementation under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If your agency
submits comments, please be as specific as possible regarding what
types of situations and issues may need to be addressed in future
implementation of PM2.5 conformity requirements.
IV. Baseline Year for Certain 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
A. Background
Conformity determinations for transportation plans, TIPs, and
projects not from a conforming transportation plan and TIP must include
a regional emissions analysis that fulfills Clean Air Act provisions.
The conformity rule provides for several different regional emissions
analysis tests that satisfy Clean Air Act requirements in different
situations. Once a SIP with a motor vehicle emissions budget
(``budget'') is submitted for an air quality NAAQS and EPA finds the
budget adequate for conformity purposes or approves it as part of the
SIP, conformity is demonstrated using the budget test for that
pollutant or precursor, as described in 40 CFR 93.118.
Before an adequate or approved SIP budget is available, conformity
of the transportation plan, TIP, or project not from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP is demonstrated with the interim emissions
test(s), as described in 40 CFR 93.119. The interim emissions tests
include different forms of the ``build/no-build'' test and ``baseline
year'' test. In general, for the baseline year test, emissions from the
planned transportation system or project not from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP are compared to emissions that occurred in
the baseline year (please refer to Sec. 93.119 for the more detailed,
specific requirements). This part of today's proposal would update
Sec. 93.119 of the current conformity rule for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The baseline year for nonattainment areas under
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2002 (40 CFR 93.119(e)(2)). Sections
V. and VI. of this proposal go into further detail about how any
baseline year option would be applied in 2006 PM2.5 areas.
[[Page 23029]]
B. Proposal
EPA is proposing that a year more recent than 2002 be used as the
baseline year for conformity purposes in 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas. EPA requests comment on the following proposed
options:
Option 1: Define the baseline year as 2008;
Option 2: Rather than naming a specific year, define the
baseline year for conformity purposes as whatever year would be used to
meet other air quality planning requirements, such as SIP planning and
inventory requirements;
Option 3: Define the baseline year as 2005.
Option 2 would establish the baseline year for conformity purposes
for the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as well as any areas
designated for a PM2.5 NAAQS that EPA promulgates in the
future. Therefore, if this option were finalized, the transportation
conformity rule would not have to be amended in the future to establish
a new baseline year for conformity if additional NAAQS changes are made
in the future.
There are different formulations of regulatory text that EPA could
use to define the baseline year under Option 2. For example, EPA could
define the baseline year for any area designated for a PM2.5
NAAQS promulgated after 1997 as the most recent year for which EPA's
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) (40 CFR part 51) requires
submission of on-road mobile source emissions inventories, as of the
effective date of EPA's nonattainment designations for such NAAQS.
Another possibility would be to simply define the conformity baseline
year as the year that will be used as the baseline for SIP development
for given NAAQS, which EPA could specify in a guidance memorandum
issued in the future.
Option 2 would likely result in the year 2008 as the baseline year
in 2006 PM2.5 areas because this is the year anticipated to
be the baseline year for SIP planning and inventory requirements. The
year 2008 would also be the most recent year of on-road mobile source
emissions inventories available for SIP planning purposes when SIPs for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are likely to be due.
EPA is proposing rule language for Options 1 and 2 in Sec.
93.119(e)(2)(B), although all three of these options could be
considered for the final rule. EPA is therefore soliciting comment on
all three options. While today's action proposes no changes to the 2002
baseline year for areas designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, we propose to reorganize Sec. 93.119(e)(2) to
clarify that 2002 applies only to areas designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The existing interagency consultation process (40 CFR
93.105(c)(1)(i)) would be used to determine the latest assumptions and
models for generating baseline year motor vehicle emissions to complete
any baseline year test. The baseline year emissions level that is used
in conformity would be required to be based on the latest planning
assumptions available, the latest emissions model, and appropriate
methods for estimating travel and speeds as required by 40 CFR 93.110,
93.111, and 93.122 of the current conformity rule. The baseline year
test can be completed with a submitted or draft baseline year motor
vehicle emissions SIP inventory, if the SIP reflects the latest
information and models. If such a SIP baseline is not available, an
MPO, in consultation with state and local air agencies, could also
develop baseline year emissions as part of the conformity analysis.
C. Rationale
EPA believes that a more recent year than 2002 is appropriate for
meeting Clean Air Act conformity requirements for 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas. EPA also believes that using a more recent year
than 2002 is required to meet these statutory requirements, and is more
environmentally protective and relevant for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Coordinating the conformity baseline year with the year used for
SIP planning and an emission inventory year was EPA's rationale for
using 2002 as the baseline year for conformity tests in existing
PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 NAAQS. As described
in the July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40015), EPA selected 2002 as the
conformity baseline year because 2002 was identified as the anticipated
emission inventory base year for the SIP planning process under the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ EPA continues to believe that
coordinating the conformity's baseline with other data collection and
inventory requirements would allow state and local governments to use
their resources more efficiently. However, for the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the year 2002 does not have the
same relevance and does not provide the same level of environmental
protection as a more recent year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Also, the AERR requires submission of point, nonpoint, and
mobile source emissions inventories every three years, and 2002 was
one of those required years for such updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In choosing the baseline year for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA also believes it could be important to coordinate the conformity
rule's baseline year with the year ultimately used as a baseline for
SIP planning for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as well as other
emissions inventory requirements. EPA has proposed 2008 as a baseline
year for conformity purposes (Option 1) and believes such an option
would be appropriate to meet Clean Air Act conformity requirements. EPA
selected 2002 for the baseline year tests in 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the July 1, 2004 final rule (69
FR 40015) not only because EPA believed that 2002 was the most
appropriate measure for meeting Clean Air Act conformity requirements
not to worsen air quality or delay timely attainment or achievement of
any required interim milestone prior to SIP budgets being established,
but also because EPA believed it was important to have transportation
and air quality planning coordinated. Having consistent baseline years
for SIPs, conformity determinations and other emissions inventory
requirements helps to achieve this goal.
Alternatively, EPA has also proposed 2005 as a baseline year for
conformity purposes (Option 3) because this year is also relevant for
2006 PM2.5 areas. The year 2005 is more recent than 2002,
and 2005 data would also be available for other inventory purposes such
as the AERR. In addition, most 2006 PM2.5 areas will be
designated nonattainment based in part on air quality monitoring data
from the year 2005. EPA is required to make nonattainment designations
for PM2.5 based on the most recent three years of air
quality data, i.e., 2005-2007 data for most 2006 PM2.5
areas. For this reason, 2005 is being proposed as a baseline year for
conformity purposes.
Whereas Options 1 and 3 would apply specifically to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes in Option 2 to generalize the
language for the baseline year for areas designated under any
PM2.5 NAAQS established after 1997. Given that the Clean Air
Act requires EPA to review the NAAQS for possible revision once every
five years, adopting Option 2 would standardize the process for
selecting an appropriate baseline year to use in meeting conformity
requirements before SIP budgets have been established for any future
PM2.5 NAAQS. This would enable EPA, MPOs and other
transportation planners to identify the appropriate baseline year for
conformity purposes without EPA having to amend the conformity
regulation first.
In other words, Option 2 would allow EPA to identify an appropriate
baseline
[[Page 23030]]
year in an expeditious manner for transportation conformity purposes.
As a result, MPOs and other transportation planners would understand
conformity requirements for future PM2.5 NAAQS revisions
more quickly, which may, in turn, also allow more time to prepare and
complete necessary conformity determinations.
EPA believes that Option 2 would result in an appropriate baseline
year for a given PM2.5 NAAQS. Since Option 2 is based on the
same criteria that have been used for proposed Option 1 and for
establishing baseline years for other NAAQS (58 FR 62191, 69 FR 40014),
EPA believes this option would also result in an environmentally
protective and legal baseline year for conformity under the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and any future PM2.5 NAAQS revisions.
Finalizing Option 2 would most likely result in a baseline year of 2008
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
If the regulatory text for this option referred to the AERR
requirement, the option would ensure that areas designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as areas
designated for revised PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, would use
the year for which the most recent emissions inventories are required
to be submitted as of the effective date of EPA's final designations.
The regulatory text for Option 2 could also be written to refer to the
year that will be used as the baseline year for SIP development for a
given PM2.5 NAAQS.
In either case, under Option 2 EPA would most likely clarify what
year is to be used for the baseline year test by issuing a memorandum.
If this option were finalized, EPA would issue such a memorandum prior
to conformity requirements applying.
EPA requests comment on all of these options. Though commenters can
simply express a preference, providing rationale for a preference is
especially useful to EPA. In particular, EPA seeks comment on whether
state and local agencies believe that establishing the baseline year
using Option 2 presents any implementation concerns, and if so, how EPA
could address such concerns.
V. Regional Conformity Tests in 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas That Do Not Have Adequate or Approved SIP Budgets for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
This part of the proposal discusses regional conformity tests for
nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that do not
have adequate or approved PM2.5 SIP budgets for the 1997
NAAQS. This proposal would apply to 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas that were not covered by the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well
as nonattainment areas for both PM2.5 NAAQS that do not have
an adequate or approved 1997 PM2.5 SIP budget. EPA would
address conformity tests for these areas under proposed section
93.109(j) of the conformity rule. See Section VI. of today's proposal
for conformity tests in 2006 PM2.5 areas that have adequate
or approved SIP budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Note that this section of the preamble proposes new requirements
for conformity only under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
proposal does not address the requirements for demonstrating conformity
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
A. Conformity After 2006 PM2.5 SIP Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
1. Proposal
Once a SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is submitted with a
budget(s) that EPA has found adequate or approved, EPA proposes that
the budget test must be used in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118 to
complete all applicable regional emissions analyses for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Conformity would be demonstrated if the
transportation system emissions reflecting the proposed transportation
plan, TIP, or project not from a conforming transportation plan and TIP
were less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget level
defined by the SIP as being consistent with Clean Air Act requirements.
The first SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS could be a
control strategy SIP required by the Clean Air Act (i.e., reasonable
further progress SIP or attainment demonstration) or a maintenance
plan. States could also voluntarily choose to submit an ``early
progress SIP'' prior to required SIP submissions. Early progress SIPs
must demonstrate a significant level of future emissions reductions
from a previous year's emissions. For example, an area could submit an
early progress SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that
demonstrates a specific percentage of emissions reductions (e.g., 5-
10%) in an area's attainment year from the baseline year emissions
(e.g., 2008). An early progress SIP would include emissions inventories
for all emissions sources for the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area and would meet applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress SIPs. EPA has discussed this option in past
conformity rule preambles, e.g., the July 1, 2004 transportation
conformity final rule (69 FR 40028), and many states have established
early progress SIP budgets for conformity purposes.
Whatever the case, the interim emissions test(s) would no longer be
used for direct PM2.5 or a relevant precursor once an
adequate or approved SIP budget for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is
established for the pollutant or precursor. EPA encourages states to
develop their future 2006 PM2.5 SIPs in consultation with
MPOs, state and local transportation agencies, and local air quality
agencies to facilitate future conformity determinations. Once EPA's
nonattainment designations are finalized, EPA Regions would be
available to assist states in the development of early progress SIPs
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, if desired.
2. Rationale
EPA believes that this proposal meets statutory requirements for
conformity determinations that occur after SIP budgets are available
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act states that transportation activities must ``conform to an
implementation plan * * * '' (SIP) and states further that conformity
to an implementation plan means conformity to the SIP's purpose. Once
EPA finds a budget for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS adequate or
approves the SIP that includes it, the budget test provides the best
means to determine whether transportation plans and TIPs meet the
statutory obligations in Clean Air Act sections 176(c)(1)(A) and (B)
for that NAAQS. That is, the budget test best shows that transportation
plans and TIPs conform to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (176(c)(1)(A)); and best confirms
the requirement that transportation plans and TIPs not cause or
contribute to any new violation, worsen an existing violation, or delay
timely attainment or any required interim milestone (176(c)(1)(B)). The
budget test also best demonstrates that transportation plans and TIPs
comply with the statutory obligation to be consistent with the
emissions estimates in SIPs, according to Clean Air Act section
176(c)(2)(A). By being consistent with the on-road mobile source
emissions levels in the SIP, transportation planners can ensure that
their activities remain consistent with state and local air quality
goals to protect public health.
B. Conformity Before 2006 PM2.5 SIP Budgets Are Adequate or Approved
1. Proposal
EPA is proposing that these 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas meet one of the following interim emissions tests for
[[Page 23031]]
conformity determinations conducted before adequate or approved 2006
24-hour PM2.5 SIP budgets are established:
The build-no-greater-than-no-build test (``build/no-build
test''), or
The no-greater-than-baseline year emissions test
(``baseline year test'').
Again, this part of the proposal would apply only in cases where a
2006 PM2.5 area does not have adequate or approved SIP
budgets for either the 2006 or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Section VI.
of the proposal covers the case where a 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area has a SIP budget for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
This proposal is similar to the transportation conformity rule at
40 CFR 93.119(e) for nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. Today's proposal would allow 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas without SIP budgets to choose between the two interim emissions
tests, rather than require that one specific test or both tests be
completed. Conformity would be demonstrated under the proposal if the
transportation emissions reflecting the proposed transportation plan or
TIP (build) were less than or equal to either the emissions from the
existing transportation system (no-build), or the level of motor
vehicle emissions in the baseline year, as described in 40 CFR 93.119.
A full discussion of the proposed baseline year options for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS can be found in Section IV. of today's notice.
2. Rationale
EPA believes that this proposal meets statutory requirements for
conformity determinations that occur before SIP budgets are available
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes it is appropriate to
provide flexibility and allow 2006 PM2.5 areas to meet only
one interim emissions test before adequate or approved PM2.5
SIP budgets are established. This proposal meets statutory requirements
and parallels the current rule's requirements for 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment areas (69 FR 40028-40031), which were upheld by an
October 2006 court decision. Environmental Defense v. EPA, 467 F.3d
1329 (DC Cir. 2006).\8\ In addition, this proposal is consistent with
past rulemakings for interim emissions test requirements for other
pollutants, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Petitioners challenged several aspects of the conformity
regulations. In its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
93.119(b)(2), (d), and (e) ``because the Act does not require that
activities involving transportation actually reduce pollutants, but
merely not frustrate an implementation plan's purpose to reduce
overall emissions.'' The court also upheld EPA's regulations at 40
CFR 93.118(b), (d), and (e)(6). The court vacated a narrow provision
at 40 CFR 93.109(e)(2)(v) which had allowed 8-hour ozone areas to
avoid using their existing 1-hour budgets under certain
circumstances. This provision was removed from the transportation
conformity regulation in the January 24, 2008 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using either the build/no-build test or baseline year test is
sufficient to meet Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B) requirements that
transportation activities do not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment or achievement
of interim reductions or milestones. The baseline year and the build/
no-build tests are sufficient for demonstrating conformity when an area
does not have a SIP budget for a portion of a nonattainment area.
Based on the Clean Air Act, EPA has previously determined that only
ozone and CO areas of higher classifications \9\ are required to also
satisfy section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requirements during the time period
before adequate or approved SIP budgets are available (58 FR 3782-3783;
62 FR 43784-43785; 69 FR 40018, 40019-40031). As a result, the current
rule requires these ozone and CO areas to meet both interim emissions
tests, rather than only one test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ That is, ozone areas classified as moderate and above, and
CO areas classified as moderate with design value greater than 12.7
ppm and serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the current conformity rule already allows areas
designated for the other pollutants, as well as the lower
classifications of ozone and CO, to conform based on only one interim
emissions test, rather than having to complete two tests and thereby
contribute further reductions towards attainment. EPA proposes that the
2006 PM2.5 areas also be required to meet only one of the
interim emissions tests to meet the Clean Air Act's requirements in
section 176(c)(1)(B). For more information and the full rationale for
allowing some areas to conform based on only one interim emissions
test, see the November 24, 1993 final rule (58 FR 62197) that addressed
interim requirements for PM10 and NO2 areas, and
the July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40029) that established interim
requirements for 1997 PM2.5 areas.
EPA believes that the no-greater-than-baseline year interim
emissions test is an appropriate test for meeting section 176(c)(1)(B)
requirements in 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas. By
definition, the no-greater-than baseline year test ensures that
emissions from on-road mobile sources are no greater than they were
during the baseline year that will most likely be used for 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS SIP planning purposes. If future on-road
emissions do not increase above their base year levels, applicable
statutory requirements are met.
Finally, the build/no-build test would also allow a 2006
PM2.5 area to meet statutory requirements. As described
above, the build/no-build test requires a regional emissions analysis
to demonstrate that the emissions from the transportation system in
future years, if it included the proposed action and all other expected
regionally significant projects, would be less than the emissions from
the current transportation system in future years. Since a new
transportation plan, TIP, or project (in the build scenario) could not
result in regional emissions that are higher than those that would
occur in the absence of new transportation activities (in the no-build
scenario) for the system, the Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B)
requirements are met. For these reasons, EPA believes that the build/
no-build test continues to be an appropriate interim test prior to SIP
budgets being available.
C. General Implementation of Regional Tests
This proposal would apply the existing conformity rule's general
requirements for PM2.5 regional emissions analyses in 2006
PM2.5 areas that do not have adequate or approved SIP
budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is including this
discussion of the existing regulation's requirements for clarity, to
help readers understand how the existing regulation would apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
However, EPA is not soliciting comment on these existing requirements
that we are not proposing to change. The following examples are
intended to illustrate how today's proposal would be implemented in
practice for 2006 PM2.5 areas without adequate or approved
1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets.
1. Decisions Made Through the Interagency Consultation Process
The existing rule's consultation process would be used to determine
the test for completing any regional emissions analysis for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The
existing interagency consultation process would also be used to
determine the latest assumptions and models for generating motor
vehicle emissions regardless of the test used. Refer to Section IV. of
this preamble for details about generating baseline year emissions if
that interim emissions test is selected for a given conformity
determination.
The consultation process would also be used to determine which
analysis
[[Page 23032]]
years should be selected for regional emissions analyses. Before an
adequate or approved 2006 PM2.5 budget is available, areas
would be able to choose, through interagency consultation, either
interim emissions test for each conformity determination. However, the
same test would be required to be used for each analysis year for a
given determination. EPA believes that sufficient flexibility exists
without mixing and matching interim emissions tests for different
analysis years within one conformity determination, which is
unnecessarily complicated and may indicate that an area would not
conform using one test consistently.
2. General Conformity Test Requirements for All Areas
Regional emissions analyses under this proposal would be
implemented through existing conformity requirements such as 40 CFR
93.118, 93.119, and 93.122. For example, the existing conformity rule
requires that only certain years within the transportation plan (or
alternate timeframe) be examined. Under 40 CFR 93.118(d), the following
years would be analyzed for the